Skip to main content

Full text of "The Philological museum"

See other formats 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 


at  http  :  /  /books  ■  google  .  com/ 


A 


•  THE 


PHILOLOGICAL 


MUSEUM. 


SECOND  VOLUME. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

Peiwted  bt   J.  SMITH,  Pbiittek  to  thz  Uxiveiisitti 

FOR  DEIOHTONS^   CAMBRIDGE; 

RIVINGTONS,  LONDON; 

AND  PARKER,  OXFORD. 

M.DCC'C.XXXin. 


CONTENTfS  OF  THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 


rMAGiNARY  Conversation.       P.    Scipio    Emilianua,    Polybius, 

Paiietius 1 

Dr  Arnold  on  die  Spartan  Constitution   3K 

On  the  Homeric  Vae  of  the  word  "ll^jw? 72 

On  AfTectition  in  ancient  and  modem  Art......... 93 

De  Arati  Canone  August!  Boeckhii  Prolusin  Acad^raica 101 

Anecdota  Barocciana 108 

On  the  (Ionian  Cohni,  trom  the  German  of  Savigny il7 

Memnon 146 

On  the  Position  of  Suaa 185 

On  certain  Tenses  attributed  to  the  Greek  Verb IDS 

Quo  Anni  Tempore  Panathenaea  Minora  celebrata  sint,  qiue- 

ritur 227 

MiBCCLLj^NEOUR    OnSERTATIONS. 

On  tlie  Death  of  Paches 236 

On  the  Title  of  Xenophon's  Greek   Historj*,  from  the 

German  of  L.  Dindorf 241 

On  Engti«th  Preterites  and  Genitives «. 243 

On  the  Use  cif  Definitions 2fI3 

On  the  Attic  Dionysia 273 

On  the  l'aintinf(  of  an  ancient  Vase 30ii 

On  certain  affirmative  and  negative   Particles  of  the  Gnfrlish 

Language H15 

On  Oc  and    Gift,    particularly  with   reference  to  what   Dante 

says  on  ttic  subject 330 

On  the  Kings  of  Attica  before  Theseus 345 

On  English  Pratcritc* 373 

On  the  Birth- Year  of  Deiimiithenes 38» 

Anecdota  Barocciana 413 

On  ancient  Greek  Mumc • 435 

De  .Saeerdotiis  Groecorum  Auguiiti  Boeckhii  Proluaio  Academica  44f) 


335343 


IV  contevts. 


r^at 


De  Titulis  Quibusdam  Suppositis  August!  Boeckhii  Prolusio 

Academica 457 

Miscellaneous  Observations. 

I.  On  a  Passage  of  the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles  from 

the  Gennan  of  Welcker "  468 

II.  On  the  Months  of  the  Roman  Lunar  Year 473 

III.  Notice  of  the  Third  Volume  of  Niebuhr's  Roman 
History 475 

On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles 483 

On  the  Worth  o€  Socrates  as  a  Philosopher  538 

Schleiermacher  on  Plato's  Apology  556 

Socratesj  Schleiermacher,  and  Delbrueck 562 

Simplicius  de  Coelo 588 

Vico 626 

Regia  Homerica 645 

Ogyges 650 

Niebuhr  on  the  Distinction  between  Annals  and  History....  661 

Hannibal's  Passage  over  the  Alps 671 

Miscellaneous  Observations. 

I.  Emendations  of  Athenaeus 687 

II.  Notice  of  Micali's  History  of  the  Ancient  Nations 

of  Italy  ,. 689 

III.  De  Taciti  loco.  Hist.  I.  53,  Augusti  Boeckhii  Pro- 
lusio Academica 694 

IV.  De  Platonifl  in  Republica  loco,  Augusti  Boedihii 
Prolusio  Academica 699 

V.  Cleon  and  Admiral  Vernon  7tK? 


1 


IMAGINARY    CONVERSATION. 


P.  SCIPIO  EMILIANUS,  POLYBIUS,  I'ANKTIUS. 


SCIPIO. 
"oLTBius,  if  you  Imvc  found  me  slow  in  rising  to  you, 
if  I  lifted  not  up  my  eyes  to  salute  you  on  your  cntcrancc, 
do  not  hold  me  ungrateful .  .  proud  there  is  no  danger  that 
you  will  ever  call  me :  this  day  of  all  days  would  least  make 
me  so:  it  shews  nie  the  power  of  the  immortal  godti,  the 
mutahility  of  fortune,  the  iu»tability  of  empire,  the  feeble- 
ness, the  nothingness,  of  man.  The  earth  stands  mutitm- 
less;  the  grass  upon  it  bends  and  returns,  the  same  today 
as  yesteniay,  the  &ame  in  this  age  as  in  a  thousand  |>ast ;  the 
sky  darkens  and  is  serene  again;  the  clouds  melt  away,  but 
they  are  clouds  another  time,  and  float  like  triumphal  jmu 
geonts  along  the  heavens.  Carthage  is  fallen !  to  rise  no 
more  I  the  funereal  boms  have  this  hour  announced  to  ua 
that,  after  eighteen  days  and  eighteen  nights  of  conflagration, 
her  last  embers  are  extinguished. 

POL^-BIUS. 
Perhajw,  O  Emilianua,  I  ought  not  to  have  come  in. 

SCIPIO. 
Welcome,  my  friend. 

POLYBIUS. 

While  you  were  speaking  I  would  by  no  means  interrupt 
you  so  idlv,  as  to  ask  you  to  whom  have  you  been  proud, 
or  to  whom  could  you  be  ungrateful. 

SCIPIO. 

To  him,  if  to  any,  whose  hand  is  on  roy  heart ;   to  him 
en   whose  shoidder  I  rest  my  head,  weary  with  presages  and 
vigils.     Collect  my  thoughts  fnr  me,  O  my  friend  f  ihe  fall 
Vol.  n.  No.  4."  A 


3 


Imaginary  Converitation. 


of  Curthoge  Imth  «haken  anil  scattereti  them.  There  are 
moments  when,  if  we  arc  quite  contented  with  ourselves,  we 
never  con  remount  tii  what  we  were  before. 


POLYBIUS, 


Faneliufl  is  absent. 


8C1PIO. 

Feeling  the  necessity,  at  the  moment,  of  utter  lonelineee, 
1  despatched  him  toward  the  city.  Tliere  may  be  (yes,  even 
there)  some  sufferingB  whicli  tlie  Senate  would  not  censure 
us  for  assuaging.  But  here  be  returns.  Come,  tell  me, 
Polybius,  on  what  are  you  reflecting  and  meditating  ? 

POLYBIUS. 

After  the  burning  of  some  villagef  or  the  overleaping  of 
some  garden-wall,  to  exterminate  a  few  pirates  or  higjiway- 
inen,  I  have  seen  the  commauderV  tent  thronged  with  officers ; 
I  have  heard  as  many  trumpets  around  him  as  would  have 
shaken  down  the  places  of  themselves ;  I  have  seen  the  horses 
start  from  the  pretoriuni,  as  if  they  would  fly  fujm  under 
their  trappings,  and  spurred  as  if  they  were  to  reach  the 
oast  and  west  l)efore  sunset,  that  nations  might  hear  of  tlie 
exploit,  and  sleep  soundly.  And  now  do  I  behold  in  solitude^ 
almost  in  gloom,  and  in  such  silence  that,  unless  my  voice 
prevents  it,  the  grasshopper  is  audible,  him  who  has  levelled 
to  the  earth  the  strongest  and  most  populous  of  cities,  the 
wealthiest  and  most  formidable  of  empires.  I  had  seen  Home ; 
I  had  seen  (w^hat  those  who  never  .saw  never  wilt  see)  Car- 
thage ;  I  thought  I  had  seen  Scipio  :  it  was  but  the  image  of 
him:  here  I  And  him. 

SCIPIO. 

There  are  many  hcart-s  that  ache  this  day  ;  there  are  many 
that  never  will  ache  more :  hath  one  mnn  done  it  ?  one  man^s 
breath  .''  \Vhat  air,  u|>on  the  earth,  or  upon  the  waters,  or 
in  the  void  of  heaven,  is  lost  so  quickly  !  It  flies  away  at 
the  point  of  an  arrow,  and  returns  no  more!  the  sea-foam 
stifles  it  !  the  t«>th  of  a  reptile  stops  it  !  a  noxious  leaf  sup- 
presses it  f  What  are  we  in  our  greatness?  whence  rises  it? 
whither  rendu  it  f 


Imaginary  Omveraation.  3 

Merciful  gods !  niay  not  Kome  be  what  Carthage  is  ?  may 
not  ihose  who  love  her  devotedly,  those  who  will  look  on 
her  with  fondness  and  afiection  after  life,  sec  her  in  such 
condition  aa  to  wish  she  were  so  ? 

POLYBIUS. 

One  of  the  heaviest  groans  over  fallen  Carthage  burst 
from  the  breast  of  Seipio :  who  would  believe  this  tale  ? 

SCIPIO. 

Men  like  my  Polybius :  others  must  never  hear  it. 

POLYBIUS. 

You    have   not   ridden    forth,    Emilianus,   to    survey    the 


rums. 


SCIPIO. 


No,  Polybius :  since  I  removed  my  tent,  to  avoid  the  heat 
from  the  cunHogration,  I  never  have  ridden  nor  walked  nor 
looked  toward  them.  At  this  elevation,  and  three  miles  ofP, 
the  temperature  of  the  season  is  altered.  I  do  not  believe,  us 
tho^  about  me  would  have  persuadeil  me,  tliat  the  gods  were 
visible  in  the  clouds  ;  that  llirones  of  elmny  and  gold  were 
altered  in  all  directions ;  that  broken  chariots,  and  flaming 
and  brazen  bridges,  had  cast  their  fragments  ujKin  the 
earth;  that  eagles  and  lions,  dolphins  and  tridents,  and  other 
emblems  of  power  and  empire,  were  visible  at  one  moment, 
and  at  the  next  had  vanished  ;  that  purple  and  scarlet  over- 
spread the  mansions  of  the  gods ;  that  their  voices  were  heard 
at  first  confusedly  and  discordantly ;  and  that  the  apparition 
closed  with  their  high  festivals.  I  could  not  keep  my  eyes  on 
the  heavens:  a  crash  of  arch  or  of  theatre  or  of  tower,  a 
column  of  Same  rising  higlser  than  they  were,  or  a  universal 
cry,  as  if  none  until  then  had  perished,  drew  them  thither- 
ward. Such  were  the  dismal  sights  and  sounds,  a  fresh  city 
seemed  to  have  been  taken  every  hour,  for  seventeen  days. 
This  is  the  eighteenth  since  the  smoke  arose  from  the  level 
roofs  and  from  the  lofty  teinpies,  and  thousands  died,  and  tens 
of  thousands  ran  in  search  of  death. 

Calamity  moves  roe;  heroism  muveb  me  more.  That  a 
njition  whose  avarice  we  have  so  often  reprehended,  should 
have  cast  into  the  furnace  gold  and  silver,  from  the  ins\ifti- 


4  imagmarif  Conversatum. 

cjcncy  of  brags  and  iron  for  arms  ;  that  palaces  Uic  most  niag- 
tiificeiit  sliuuld  liave  bcfii  dcmulislitid  by  the  proprietor  for 
llicir  lientns  and  rafters,  in  order  to  build  a  fleet  against  us ; 
that  the  ropes  wlioreby  the  slaves  hawled  tliem  down  to  the 
new  hurbuur,  should  in  part  lie  coinpose<l  of  hair,  for  one  lock 
of  which  the  neighbouring  kings  would  have  laid  down  their 
diadem!) ;  that  Asdrubal  should  have  found  cquals>  his  wife 
none  . .  uiy  mind,  my  very  limbs,  are  unsteddy  with  admiration. 
O  Liberty  !  what  art  thou  to  the  valiant  and  brave,  when 
thou  art  thus  to  the  weak  and  timid  !  dearer  than  life,  stronger 
than  death,  tiigher  than  purest  love.  Never  will  I  call  upon 
thee  where  thy  name  can  be  profaned ;  and  never  shall  my 
soul  acknowledge  a  more  exalted  power  than  thee. 

PANETIU8. 

The  Carthaginians  and  Moors  have  heyond  other  nations 
a  delicate  feeling  on  female  chastity.  Kather  than  that  their 
women  ^ould  become  slaves  and  concubines,  they  slay  them : 
is  it  certain  that  Asdrubal  did  not  observe  or  cause  to  be  ob- 
served i\\e  custom  of  his  country  ? 

POLYBIUS. 

Certain :  on  the  surrender  of  his  army  his  wife  threw 
herself  and  her  two  infants  into  the  itamcs.  Not  only  memor- 
able acts,  of  what  the  dastardly  will  call  desperatjtm,  were 
performeil,  but  some  also  of  deliberate  and  signal  justice. 
Avaricious  as  we  called  the  people,  and  unjustly,  as  you  have 
proved,  Emilianus,  I  will  relate  what  I  myself  was  witness  to. 

In  a  part  of  the  city  where  the  fire  had  subsided,  we 
were  excited  by  loud  cries,  rather  of  indignation,  we  thought, 
than  of  such  as  fear  or  lament  or  threaten  or  exhort ;  and  we 
pressed  forward  to  disperse  the  multitude.  Our  horses  often 
plunged  in  the  soft  dust,  and  in  the  holes  whence  the  pave- 
ment had  been  removed  for  missiles,  and  often  reared  up  and 
snorted  violently  at  smells  which  we  could  not  |)erc^*ive,  but 
which  we  discovered  to  rise  from  bodies,  mutilate  and  half- 
burnt,  of  soldiers  and  horses,  laid  bare,  some  partly,  some 
wholly,  by  the  march  of  the  troop.  Altho  the  distance  from 
the  place  whence  we  parted  to  that  where  we  beard  the  cries, 
was  very  short,  yet  from  the  incumbraucei;  in  that  street,  and 


Imaginary  Conversation, 

from  the  tlusl  and  smoke  issuing  out  of  otlicrs,  wu  were 
jonie  lime  before  we  reached  it.  On  our  near  approach,  two 
old  men  tlirew  themselves  on  the  ground  before  us,  and  the 
eider  spoke  thus.  Our  age^  0  Romans,  neither  will  nor 
Wight  to  be  our  protection :  we  are-,  or  rather  we  have  been^ 
^judges  of  this  land ;  and  to  the  utmost  of  our  power  we  have 
invited  oitr  countrymen  to  resist  you.  The  taws  are  now 
yours. 

The  expectation  of  the  people  was  intense  and  silent :  we 
had  heard  some  groans  ;  and  now  the  last  words  of  the  old 
man  were  taken  up  by  others,  by  men  in  ugony. 

Yes,  0  Rontons !  said  the  elder  who  had  accompanied 
him  that  bad  addrest  us,  the  laws  are  yours  i  and  none 
punish  more  severely  than  you  do  treason  and  parricide. 
Let  your  horses  turn  this  corner^  and  you  will  see  before 
you  traitors  and  parricides. 

We  entered  a  small  s<[uare:  it  liad  been  a  marketplace: 
the  roofs  of  the  stalls  were  demolished,  and  the  etones  of 
several  columns,  not  one  of  whieh  was  standing,  thrown  down 
to  supply  tlie  cramps  of  iron  and  the  lead  that  fastened 
ihem,  served  for  the  spectators,  male  aikd  female,  to  mount 
on.  Five  men  were  nailed  on  crosses;  two  others  were  nailed 
■gainst  a  wall,  from  scarcity  (as  wc  were  told)  of  wood. 

Can  seveti  men  have  murdered  thdr  parents  in  the  same 
year¥  cried  I. 

No,  nor  had  any  of  the  seven,  replied  the  first  who  had 
spoken.  But  when  heavy  itnpositifms  were  laid  upon  those 
who  were  backward  in  voluntary  contrihutionsy  these  men, 
amonff  the  richest  in  our  city,  protested  by  the  gods  that 
they  had  tio  gold  or  silver  left.     They  protested  truly. 

And  they  die  for  this !  inJtitman,  insatiable,  inexorable 
wretch. 

Their  itooks,  added  he,  unmoved  at  my  reproaches,  tbere 
seized  fty  public  authority  and  examined.  It  was  discovered 
ihai,  instead  of  employing  tlteir  riches  in  external  or  internal 
commerce,  or  in  manufactnries^  or  in  agriirulture,  instead  of 
reserving  it  for  the  embelliahmtmt  of  the  city,  or  the  utility 
of  the  citixensy  instead  of  lending  it  on  interest  to  the  indus- 
tritiun  and  the  needy,  they  had  lent  it  to  furen  kinga  and 
tyrants,  some  of  whom   were  waging  unjust   wars  against 


6 


imaginary  Omversaiitm. 


their  nei^hbottri*  hy  fhette  renj  meanx^  and  others  were  en- 
slavinff  their  otpii  country.  For  so  heinous  a  ifrime  ttie 
laws  had  appointed  iu>  specific  punishment.  On  »ueh  otjca- 
sions  the  people  and  elders  vote  in  what  manner  the  deiin- 
qnent  shall  be  prosecuted,  lest  any  offender  should  escape 
itith  impunity^  from  their  humanity  or  their  improvidejwe* 
Some  voted  that  these  wretches  should  be  cast  amid  the 
panthers;  the  majority  decreed  them  (/  think  tcisely)  a  more 
lingering  and  more  ignominious  death. 

The  men  upon  the  tTcraws  held  down  their  heads,  whether 
from  shame  or  pain  or  feeblenesa.  The  sunbeams  were  striking 
them  fiercely  ;  sweat  ran  from  them,  liquefying  the  blood  that, 
within  a  few  instants,  had  blackened  and  hardened  on  their 
hands  and  feet.  A  soldier  stootl  by  the  side  of  each,  lowering 
the  point  of  his  spear  to  ihc  ground ;  but  no  one  of  tliem  gave  it 
up  to  us.  A  centurion  asked  the  nearest  of  them  how  he  dared 
to  stand  armed  before  him. 

Because  the  city  is  in  rtiinsi  and  the  latts  stUi  live,  said 
he.  At  the  Jirst  order  of  the  ronquerttr  or  of  the  elders  I 
surrender  my  spear. 

What  is  your  pleasure',  O  commander?  said  the  elder. 

That  an  art  of  Justice  he  the  last  public  act  performed 
hy  the  citixefis  of  Carthage,  and  that  the  sufferings  of  these 
wretches  he  not  abridged.  Such  was  my  reply.  Tlie  soldiers 
piled  their  sjjears,  for  tile  jwints  of  which  the  hearts  of  the 
cruoi6ed  men  t]iirste<l ;  and  the  people  hailed  us  as  Uiey  would 
have  hailed  deliverers. 

SCIPIO. 

It  IB  wonderful  that  a  city,  in  which  private  men  are 
80  wealthy  as  to  fiirni.sh  ttie  armories  of  tyrants,  should 
have  existed  so  long,  and  Bourishing  in  power  and  freedom. 

PANETIUS. 

It  survived  but  shortly  this  flagrant  crime  in  its  richer 
citizens.  An  admirable  fomi  of  government,  spacious  and 
safe  harbours,  a  fertile  soil,  a  healthy  climate,  industry  and 
science  in  agriculture,  in  which  no  nation  is  equal  to  the 
Moorish,  were  the  causes  of  its  prosperity:  there  are  many 
of  itR  decline. 


Imftginary  Converitation.  7 

WCIPIO. 
Enumerate  them,  Panettus,  with  your  wonted  cleari>0!ts. 

PANETIUS. 

We  are  fond,  O  my  friends  *  of  likening  power  and  great- 
ness to  tl»c  luminaries  of  heaven ;  and  we  think  ourselves 
(juite  moderate  when  wc  comiMire  the  agitations  of  elevated 
souls  to  whatever  is  highest  and  atnjngcst  on  the  earth,  liable 
alike  to  shocks  unci  suft'crings,  and  able  alike  to  survive  and 
overcome  them.  And  truly  thus  to  reason,  as  if  all  things 
around  and  above  us  sympathized,  is  good  both  for  heart 
and  intellect.  I  have  little  or  nothing  of  the  fH)etical  in  my 
character:  and  yet  from  reading  over  and  considering  these 
similitudes,  I  am  fain  to  look  u{ion  nations  with  somewhat 
of  the  same  feeling ;  and,  dropping  from  the  mountains  and 
disentangling  myself  from  the  woods  and  forests,  to  fancy  I 
see  in  states  what  I  have  seen  in  cornfields.  The  green*blades 
rise  up  vigorously  in  an  inclement  season,  and  the  wind  itself 
makes  them  shine  against  the  sun.  There  is  room  enough 
for  all  of  them :  none  wounds  another  by  collision  or  weakens 
by  overtopping  it;  but,  rising  and  bending  simultaneously, 
they  seem  e<|uaUy  and  mutually  supported.  No  sooner  do 
the  ears  of  corn  upon  them  Ue  close  together  in  their  full 
maturity,  than  a  .<ilight  inundation  is  enough  to  cast  thcni 
down,  or  a  faint  blast  of  wind  to  shed  and  scatter  them.  In 
Carthage  we  have  seen  the  powerful  families,  however  dis- 
oordant  among  themselves,  unite  against  the  popular;  and  it 
was  oiUy  when  their  lives  and  faittilies  were  at  stake  that 
the  people  cooperated  with  the  senate. 

A  mercantile  democracy  may  govern  long  and  widely ;  a 
mercantile  aristocracy  cannot  stand.  What  people  will  en- 
dure the  supremacy  of  those,  uneducated  and  presumptuous, 
from  whom  they  buy  their  mats  and  faggots,  and  who  receive 
their  money  for  die  most  ordinary  and  vile  utensils?  If  no 
caoqueror  enslaves  them  from  abroad,  they  would,  under 
such  disgrace,  welcome  as  their  deliverer,  and  acknowledge 
as  their  master,  the  citizen  most  distinguished  for  his  military 
achievements.  The  rich  men  who  were  crucified  in  the 
weltering  wilderness  beneath  us,  would  not  have  employed 
ouch  criminal  means  of  growing  richer,  had  they  never  been 


8 


imaginary  Conversation- 


persuaded  to  the  contrary,  atid  that  enormous  wealth  would 
enable  them  to  committ  another  and  a  more  flagitious  act 
of  treason  against  their  country,  in  raising  them  above  the 
people,  and  enabling  them  to  become  its  taxcrs  and  oppressors. 
O  Kmilianus !  what  a  costly  beacon  here  hath  llame  be- 
fore her  in  this  avrfvd  conflagration :  the  greatest  (I  hope) 
ever  to  be,  until  that  wherin  the  world  must  perish. 

POLYBIUS. 

How  many  Sibylline  books  are  legible  in  yonder  embers  ! 

The  causes,  O  Panctius,  which  you  have  stated,  of  Car- 
thages  former  most  fluurishing  condition,  arc  also  those  why 
a  hostile  seuale  hath  seen  the  necessity  of  her  destruction, 
necessary  not  only  to  the  dominion,  but  to  the  security,  oS 
Home.  Italy  has  the  fewest  and  the  worst  harbours  of  any 
country  known  to  us:  a  third  of  her  soil  is  sterile,  a  tliird 
of  the  remainder  is  pestiferous :  and  her  inhabitants  are  more 
addicted  to  war  and  rapine  than  to  industry  and  commerce. 
To  make  room  for  her  few  merchants  on  the  Adriatic  and 
Ionian  seas,  she  burns  Corinth :  to  leave  no  rival  in  traffic 
or  in  power,  she  burns  Carthage. 

PANETIUS. 
If  the  Carthaginians  had  extended  their  laws  and  lan- 
guage over  the  surrounding  states  of  A&ica,  which  they 
might  liavc  done  by  moderation  and  equity,  this  ruin  could 
not  have  been  effected.  Rome  has  been  victorious  by  having 
been  the  first  to  adopt  a  liberal  policy,  which  even  in  war 
itself  is  a  wi.se  one.  The  parricides  who  lent  their  money 
to  the  petty  tyrants  of  other  countries,  would  have  found 
it  greatly  more  advantageous  to  employ  it  in  cultivation 
nearer  home,  and  in  feeding  those  as  husbandmen  whom 
else  they  must  fear  as  enemies.  So  little  is  the  Carthaginian 
language  known,  that  I  doubt  whether  we  shall  in  our  life- 
time see  any  one  translate  their  annals  into  Latin  or  Greek : 
and  within  these  few  days  what  treasures  of  antiquity  have 
been  iireparably  lost !     The  Romans  will  repose  at   citrean ' 


1  I  dare  tiot  translate  the  irulft  dtrea,  eitroH  wood,  to  which  (as  wc  undcr- 
[  BtATicl  the  atron)  it  haa  no  rewiiiblance.     It  was  onen  of  great  (hmennons :  It 
■ppcurs  from  the  description  of  its  colour  to  liave  been  inahogaiiy.    The  inde 


rmttgtnnry  Cwiversahmt 

tables  for  ages,  aiul  never  knuw  at  last  pcTtiaj>i;  wlicncc  the 
Cartluiginians  brought  the  wood. 

SCIIUO. 
It  is  an  awful  thing  to  close  as  we  have  done  the  history 
of  a  people.  If  the  inleUigencc  bruuglit  this  inoniing  to 
Polybius  be  true*,  in  one  year  the  two  most  ilourishing 
and  most  beautiful  cities  in  the  world  have  perished^  in 
comparison  witli  which  our  Rome  presents  but  the  pcnt- 
hoUM;s  of  artisans  or  the  sheds  of  shepherds.  With  what- 
ever celerity  the  messager  fled  from  tlie  neighbourhood  of 
Corinth  and  arrived  hero,  the  particular!)  must  have  I»cen 
known  at  Runic  as  early,  and  I  shall  receive  them  ere  many 
days  are  pa^t. 

PANETIU8. 

T  hardly  know  whether  we  are  not  loss  alTocted  at  the 
occurrence  of  two  or  three  momentous  and  terrible  events, 
than  at  one;  and  whether  the  gods  do  not  usually  place 
them  together  in  the  order  of  things,  that  we  may  be  awe- 
stricken  by  the  former  and  reconciled  to  their  decrees  by 
llie  latter,  from  an  impression  of  their  power.  I  know  not 
what  Babylon  may  have  been ;  but  I  presume  that,  as  in 
the  ease  of  all  other  great  Asiatic  capitals,  the  habitations 
of  the  people  (who  arc  slaves)  were  wretched,  and  that  the 
raagniHcenee  of  the  jilace  consisted  in  the  property  of  the 
king  and  priesthood,  and  in  the  walls  erected  for  the  defense 
of  it.  Many  streets  probably  were  hardly  worth  a  little 
bronze  cow  of  Myron,  such  as  a  stripling  could  steal  and 
carry  off.  The  case  of  Corinth  and  of  Carthage  was  very 
different.  Wealth  overspread  the  greater  part  of  them,  com- 
petence and  content  the  whole.  Wherever  there  are  desjxjtical 
governments,  poverty  and  industry  dwell  together;  shame 
dogs  ttiem  in  the  public  walks;  humiliation  is  among  their 
household  gods. 

to  the  Atlantic  continent  ami  islands  must  have  been  poesesi  by  a  comjfMny, 
bound  li)  Mcrucy  by  oath  and  interest.  The  prodigious  price  of  this  wood 
provM  that  it  had  ceasetl  to  be  itn|K>ricd,  or  perhaps  found,  in  the  time  of 
i^cera 

9  Corinth  in  fact  was  not  bunu  until  saxuc  monllis  after  CarthagL* :  but  as 
e  fOCceM  is  always  foUowed  by  the  rumour  of  another,  Uic  relation  is  not 
ini|irDbable. 

Vol.  II.  No.  ♦.  B 


10 


Imaginary  Converaaium. 
SCIPIO. 


I  do  not  remember  the  overthrow  of  any  two  other 
great  dtiea  within  so  short  an  interval. 

PANETIUS. 

I  was  not  thinking  so  much  of  cities  or  their  inhabit- 
ants, when  1  began  to  speak  of  what  a  breath  of  the  ^'ods 
removes  at  once  from  tarth.  I  was  recollecting,  O  Eniili- 
anus,  that  in  one  Olympiad  the  three  greatest  men  that 
ever  appearetl  together  were  swept  off.  What  is  Babylon, 
or  Corinth,  or  Carthage,  in  cumparison  wilh  these!  what 
would  their  destruction  be,  if  every  hair  on  the  head  of 
every  inhabitant  had  become  a  man,  such  as  most  men  are ! 
First  in  order  of  removal  was,  he  whose  steps  you  have  fol- 
lowed and  whose  labours  you  have  completed,  Africanus:  then 
Philopemen,  whose  task  was  more  difficult,  more  complex, 
more  perfect :  and  lastly  Hannibal.  What  he  was  you  know 
better  than  any. 

SCIPIO. 

Had  he  been  supported  by  his  country,  had  only  his 
losses  been  filled  up,  and  skilful  engineers  sent  out  to  him 
with  machinery  and  implements  for  sieges,  we  should  not  be 
discoursing  here  on  what  he  was:  the  Roman  name  had  been 
extinguished. 

P0LYBIU8. 
Since  Emilianus  is  as  unwilling  to  blame  an  enemy  as 
a   Iriend,  I   take  it  on  myself  to  censure   Hannibal  for  two 
things,  subject  however  to  the  decision  of  him  who  has  con- 
quered Carthage. 

SCIPIO. 
The  first  I  anticipate:  now  what  is  the  second? 

PANETIUS. 
I   would   hear  both  stated  and   discoursed  on,  altho  the 
knowledge  will  be  of  little  vise  to  me. 

POLYBIUS. 

I  condemn,  as  every  one  docs,  his  inaction  after  the 
battle  of  Canns ;  and,  in  his  last  engagement  with  Africanus, 


Imaginary  Conrertialion. 


n 


I  condemn  no  less  his  bringing  into  the  front  of  the  center, 
as  became  some  showy  tetrarch  rather  than  Hannibal,  his 
eighty  etepliants,  by  the  refractoriness  of  which  he  lost  the 
battle. 

8CIPIO. 
What  would  you  have  done  with  Vm,  Polybius? 

POLYBIUS. 
Scipio,  I  think  it  unwise  and  unmilitary  to  employ  any 
force  on  which  we  can  by  no  means  calculate. 

8CIPI0. 
Gravely  s^d.  and  worthily  of  Polybius.  In  the  first 
book  of  your  hii^tory,  which  leaves  nie  no  other  wish  or 
desire  than  that  you  should  continue  as  you  begin  it,  we 
have,  in  jhree  different  engagements,  three  different  effects 
produced  by  the  employment  of  elephants.  The  first,  when 
our  soldiers  lu  Sicily^  under  Lucius  Postuniius  and  Quinctus 
Mamilius,  drove  the  Carthaginians  into  Heraclea;  in  which 
battle  the  advanced  guard  of  the  enemy,  being  repulsed, 
propelled  these  animals  before  it  upon  the  main  body  of  the 
army,  causing  an  irreparable  disaster :  tlie  second,  in  the 
ill-couducted  engagement  of  AtiHiis  Hegulus,  who,  fearing 
the  shock  of  them,  condensed  his  center,  and  was  outflanked. 
He  sliould  have  opened  the  tines  to  them  and  have  suffered 
tliem  to  pa-ss  thru,  as  the  eneuiyV  cavalry  was  in  the  wings, 
and  the  infantry  not  enough  in  advance  to  profit  by  such 
an  evolution.  The  third  was  evinced  at  Panormus,  when 
Metellus  gave  orders  to  the  light-armed  troops  to  harass 
them  and  retreat  into  the  trenches,  which  wounded  and  con- 
founded them,  and,  finding  no  way  open,  they  rushed  back 
(as  many  as  could)  against  the  Carthaginian  army,  aud  acce- 
lerated its  discomfiture. 

POLYBIUS. 

If  I  had  employetl  the  elephautii  at  all,  it  should  rather 
been  in  the  rear  or  on  the  flank;  and  even  there  not 
at  the  Iteginning  of  the  engagement,  unless  I  knew  that  the 
horses  or  the  soldiers  were  unused  to  encounter  them.  Han- 
nibal must  have  well  remembered  (being  equally  great  in 
memory  and  invention)  that  the  Romans  had  been  accustomed 


IS 


Imnginary  Convertation. 


to  them  in  the  war  with  Pvrrhus,  und  must  have  cx{K'ctc<l 
more  service  I'runi  them  ajraiast  the  barbarians  of  the  two 
Gauls,  against  the  Insubres  mid  Taurinl,  than  against  our 
IcgionN.  lie  knew  tliat  the  Romuiis  had  on  more  than  one 
occasion  mode  them  detrimental  to  their  masters.  Having 
willi  hiui  a  large  body  of  troops  collected  by  force  from 
various  natioiiei,  and  kept  together  with  difficulty,  he  bhould 
have  ])luccd  the  elephants  where  they  would  have  been  a  terror 
to  thoitc  soldiers,  not  without  a  threat  that  they  were  to  trample 
down  such  of  them  as  attempted  to  fly  or  declined  to  fight. 

SCIPIO. 

Now  what  think  you,  Panetius? 
PANETIU8. 

It  is  well,  O  Emiliaiuis,  when  soldiers  would  be  phi- 
losophers; but  it  is  ill  when  philosophers  wtmhl  be  scvldiers. 
Do  you  and  Pulybius  agree  on  the  jxiint  ?  if  you  t\o^  the 
question  ueed  be  asked  of  none  other. 

SCIPIO. 

Truly,  O  Pauetius,  I  would  rather  hear  the  thing  from 
him  than  that  Hannibal  should  have  heard  it :  for  a  wise 
man  will  f*ay  many  things  which  even  a  wiser  may  not  have 
thougiit  of.  Let  me  tell  you  Imth  however,  what  Polybius 
may  perhaps  know  already*  that  combusliblen  were  placed 
by  Africanus  btith  in  flunk  and  rear,  at  etjual  distances, 
with  archer:!  from  among  the  light  horsemen,  whose  arrows 
had  liquid  fire  attached  to  thcin,  and  whose  movements  would 
have  irritated,  tlistracted,  and  wearied  down  the  elephants, 
even  if  the  wounds  an<l  WTorchings  had  been  ineffectual. 
Hut  come,  Polybius,  you  must  talk  now  ns  others  talk ;  we 
all  do  souictimes. 

POLYBIUS. 

1  am  the  last  to  adniitt  the  authority  of  the  vidgar;  but 
here  wc  all  meet  and  imitc.  Without  asserting  or  believing 
that  the  general  opinion  is  of  any  weight  against  a  captain 
like  Hannibal;  agreeing  on  the  contrary  with  Panetius,  and 
firmly  persuaded  that  inyiiads  of  little  men  can  no  more 
compensate  a  great  one  than  they  can  make  him;  you  wilt 
listen  to  nic  if  I  adduce  the  authority  nf  LeliuK. 


Tmttffinary  Converitatum 


IS 


SCIPIO.  ' 

Great  authority !  and  perhaps,  as  living  antl  conversing 
with  those  who  remeinberetl  the  action  of  Cannit,  preferable 
oven  to  your  own. 

POLY  BI  US. 

It  was  tiifi  opinion  that,  from  the  consternation  of  Rome, 
the  city  might  have  been  taken. 

SCIPIO. 
It  suited  not  the  wisdum  or  the  e\]>eriei)ce  of  Hannibal 
to  rely  on  the  consternation  of  the  Roman  people.  I  too, 
that  we  may  be  on  equal  terms,  have  some  autliority  to  bring 
forward.  The  son  of  Africanus,  he  who  adojited  me  into 
the  family  of  the  ScipioH,  wa.s,  as  you  both  remember,  a 
man  of  delicate  health  and  sedentary  habits,  learned,  elegant, 
Land  retired.  He  related  to  me,  as  liaviiig  heard  it  from 
bis  father,  that  Hamiibul  after  the  battle  M.'nt  home  tlie 
rings  of  the  Roman  knights,  and  said  in  his  letter,  If  you 
wifl  instantly  f^ive  me  a  vofdier  for  each  ritif^,  tof^ether  with 
gttch  flit/chines  a*  are  nlready  in  the  arse7ial,  I  tviU  replace 
them  hurmounted  hj  a  statue  of  Cnpitoline  Jupiter^  and 
our  supplirtitiouM  to  the  godn  of  trur  country  s/iall  he  made 
along  the  atreetx  and  in  the  temples  on  the  robea  of  the 
Moman  tenate.  Could  he  doubt  of  so  moderate  a  supply  ? 
he  waited  for  it  in  vain. 

And  now  I  will  relate  to  you  another  thing,  which  I 
am  persuaded  you  will  accept  as  a  sufficient  reason  of  itself 
why  Hannibal  ditl  not  besiege  our  city  after  the  liattle  of 
C'annu.'.  His  own  loss  was  so  severe,  that,  in  his  whole 
army,  he  could  not  muster  ten  thousand  men". 

But,  my  friends,  as  I  am  certain  that  neither  of  you  will 
ever  think  nie  invidious,  and  as  the  greatness  of  Hannibal 
does  not  diminish  the  reputation  of  Africanus,  but  augment 
it,  I  will  venture  to  remark  that  lie  liad  little  skill  or  prac- 
tice in  sieges;  that,  after  the  battle  of  Thrasymene,  he 
attacked  (you  rememlwr)  Sjxilctum  un.succcssfuUy ;  and  that, 
a  short  time  l»efore  the  imhappy  day  at  Canna;,  a  much 
Mualler  tovm   than  8[Ktletum  1i.id   resisted   and   re]}u1sed   him. 

3  Pluturch  says,  siiil  unHouhU-iUy  iiputi  sonu'  ancient  nutliorily,  that  bofk 
ftrniio  Au\  not  contain  (hat  numbiT. 


14 


Imaginary  Coneersalkm. 


Perhaps  lie  rejoiced  in  his  heart  that  he  was  not  supplie 
with  materials  requisite  for  the  capture  of  strong  places; 
since  in  KomCf  he  well  knew,  he  would  have  found  a  body 
of  men,  partly  citizens  who  had  formerly  borne  arms,  partly 
the  wealthier  of  our  allies  who  had  taken  refuge  there,  to- 
gether with  their  slaves  and  cUents,  exceding  his  army  in 
number,  not  inferior  in  valour,  compensating  the  want  of 
generalship  by  the  advantage  of  position  and  by  the  despe- 
ration of  their  fortunes,  and  possessing  the  abundant  means 
of  a  vigorous  and  long  defense.  Unnecessary  is  it  to  speak 
of  its  duration.  When  a  garrison  can  hold  our  city  six 
iDonths,  or  even  less,  the  besieger  must  retire.  Such  is  the 
humidity  of  the  air  in  its  vicinity,  that  the  Carthaginians, 
who  enjoyed  here  at  home  a  very  dry  and  salubrious  cli- 
mate, would  have  perished  utterly.  The  Gauls,  I  imagine, 
left  us  on  a  former  occasion  from  the  same  necessity.  Be- 
sides, they  are  impatient  of  inaction,  and  wnnld  have  been 
most  so  under  a  general  to  whom,  without  any  cause  in 
common,  they  were  hut  hired  auxiliaries.  None  in  any  Hge 
halli  performed  such  wonderfid  exploits  as  Hannibal;  and  we 
ought  not  to  censure  him  for  deficiency  in  an  art  which  we 
ourselves  have  acquired  hut  lately.  Is  there,  Polybius,  any 
proof  or  record  that  Alexander  of  Macedoii  was  master  of  it  ? 

POLYBIUS. 
I  have  found  none.  We  know  that  he  exposed  his  |)erson, 
^nd  had  nearly  lost  his  life,  by  leaping  froni  the  walls  of 
a  city;  which  a  commander  in  chief  ought  never  to  do, 
unless  he  would  rather  hear  the  huzzas  of  children,  than  the 
approbation  of  military  men,  or  any  men  of  discretion  or  sense. 
Alexander  was  without  an  excuse  for  his  temerity,  since  he 
was  attended  by  the  generals  who  hod  taken  Thebes,  and 
who  therefor,  he  might  well  know,  would  take  the  weaker 
and  less  bravely  defended  towns  of  Asia. 

SCIPIO. 
Here  again  you  must  observe  the  superiority  of  Hannibal. 
He  was  accompanied  by  no  general  of  extraordinary  talents^ 
resolute  as  were  many  of  them,  and  indeed  all.  Mis  irrup- 
tion into  and  thro  Gaul,  with  so  inconsiderable  a  force ;  his 
formation  of  allies  out  of  enemies,  in  so  brief  a  ^pace  of  time ; 


Imaginary  Conversation^ 

and  then  liis  holding  them  together  so  long,  arc  such  miracles, 
that,  cutting  thro  eternal  snows,  and  marching  thro  palhft 
which  seem  to  us  suspended  loosely  and  hardly  jwiaed  in 
the  heav'ens,  are  less.  And  those  too  were  his  device  and 
work.  Drawing  of  parallels,  captain  against  captain,  is  the 
cKcupation  of  a  trifling  and  scholastic  mimi,  and  seldom  is 
cximmcnced,  and  never  conducted  impartially.  Yet,  my 
friends,  who  of  these  idlers  in  parallelograms  is  so  idle,  as 
to  compare  the  inva^sinn  of  Per.sia  with  the  invasion  of  Gaul, 
the  Alps,  and  Italy;  Moors  and  Carthaginians  with  Mace- 
donians and  Greeks;  Darius  and  his  hordes  and  satraps  with 
Roman  legions  under  Koman  consuls? 

While  Hannibal  lived,  O  Polybius  and  I^anetius !  altho 
hiK  city  lay  before  us  smouldering  in  its  ashes  ours  would 
be  ever  insecure. 

PANETIUS. 

You  said,  O  Scipio,  that  the  Romans  had  learnt  but 
recently  tlie  business  of  sieges;  and  yet  many  cities  in  Italy 
appear  to  me  very  strong,  which  your  armies  took  long  ago. 

SCIPIO. 
By  force  and  patience.  If  Pyrrhus  had  never  invaded  ua, 
we  should  scarcely  have  excelled  the  Carthaginians,  or  even 
the  Nouiades,  in  ca«lrametatiun,  and  have  been  inferior  to 
both  in  cavalry.  Whatever  we  know,  we  have  learnt  from 
your  country,  whether  it  be  useful  in  peace  or  war  .  -  I  say 
your  country;  for  the  Macedonians  were  instructed  by  the 
Greeks.  The  father  of  Alexander,  the  first  of  his  family  who 
was  not  as  barbarous  and  ignorant  as  a  Carian  or  Armenian 
slave,  received  his  rudiments  in   the  house  of  l-'ipaminondaa. 

PANETIUS. 

Permitt  uie  now  to  return,  O  Scipio,  to  a  question  not 
unconnected  with  philosophy.  Whether  it  was  pnident  or 
not  in  Haimibal  to  invest  the  city  of  Rome  after  his  victory, 
he  might  somewhere  have  employed  his  army,  where  it  should 
not  waste  away  with  luxury. 

SCIPIO. 

Philosophers,  O  Panetius,  seem  to  know  more  about 
luxury  than  we  military  men  do.      I  cannot  say  upon  what 


16  Imiiginary  Conversation 

their   apprehensions   of  it    are    founded,   but   certainly   they 
sadly  fear  it. 

POLYBIUS. 

For  us.  I  wish  I  could  as  easily  make  you  smile  today, 
O  Emilianus,  as  I  shall  our  good-tempered  and  liberal 
Panetius;  a  philosopher,  as  we  have  experienced,  less  in- 
clined to  speak  ill  or  ludicrously  of  others,  be  the  sect  what 
it  may,  than  any  other  I  know  or  have  heard  of. 

In  my  early  days,  one  of  a  different  kind,  and  whose 
alarms  at  luxury  were  (as  we  discovered)  subdued  in  some 
degree,  in  some  places,  was  invited  by  Critolaus  to  dine  with 
a  party  of  us,  all  then  young  officers,  on  our  march  from 
Achaia  into  Elis.  His  florid  and  open  countenance  made 
his  company  very  acceptable;  and  the  more  so,  as  we  were 
informed  by  Critolaus  that  he  never  was  importunate  with 
his  morality  at  dinner-time. 

Philosophers,  if  they  deserve  the  name,  are  by  no  means 
indifferent  as  to  the  places  in  which  it  is  their  intention  to 
sow  the  seeds  of  virtue.  They  choose  the  ingenuous,  the 
modest,  the  sensible,  the  obedient.  We  thought  rather  of 
where  we  should  place   our   table. 

The  cistus,  the  pomegranate,  the  myrtle,  the  serpolet, 
bloomed  over  our  heads  and  beside  us;  for  we  had  chosen 
a  platform  where  a  projecting  rock,  formerly  a  stone-quarry, 
shaded  us,  and  where  a  little  rill,  of  which  the  spring  was 
there,  hedimmed  our  goblets  with  the  purest  water.  The 
awnings  we  had  brought  with  us  to  protect  us  from  the 
sun,  were  unnecessary  for  that  purpose:  we  rolled  them 
therefor  into  two  long  seats,  filling  them  with  moss,  which 
grew  profusely  a  few  paces  below.  When  our  guest  ar- 
rives, said  Critolaus,  every  one  of  these  Jlowers  will  serve 
him  for  some  moral  illustration ;  every  shrub  will  be  the  rod 
of  Mercury  in  his  hands-  We  were  impatient  for  the  time 
of  his  coming.  Thelyrania,  the  beloved  of  Critolaus,  had 
been  instructed  by  him  in  a  stratagem,  to  subvert,  or  shake 
at  least  and  stagger,  the  philosophy  of  Euthymedes.  Has 
the  name  escaped  me  !  no  matter  . . .  perhaps  he  is  dead  ■ .  . 
if  living,  he  would  smile  at  a  recoverable  lapse,  as  easily 
as  we  did. 


Imtt^htary^inS^Saf 


17 


I 


^ 


Tlielymnia  wore  a  dress  like  ours,  ami  acceded  to  every 
advice  eif  Oitolaus,  excepting  that  she  would  not  consent  so 
Veadily  to  entwine  her  liead  with  ivy.  At  first  she  objected 
timt  there  was  not  enuugli  of  it  for  all-  Instantly  two  or  three 
of  us  pulled  down  (for  noticing  is  more  brittle)  a  vast  quantity 
from  the  rock,  whicli  loosened  some  stones,  and  brought  down 
tf^ther  with  thciii  a  bird'»  nest  of  the  last  year.  Then  she 
said,  /  (iarti  not  ime  this  icy:  the  omen  i«  a  bad  one. 

Do  ytm  mean  the  rwra/,   Thelymnia  f  said  Critolaus. 

Ao,  not  the  nest  so  much  as  the  stones,  replied  she,  fal- 
tering. 

Ah  f  those  signify  the  dogmas  of  Euthymedea,  which  you, 
my  iovely  Thelymnin,  are  to  loofien  and  throw  down. 

At  this  she  smihMl  faintly  and  brieHy,  and  liegan  to 
break  off  some  of  the  more  glossy  leaves ;  and  we  who  stood 
around  her  were  ready  to  take  them  and  place  them  in  her 
hair;  when  suddenly  she  held  them  tighter,  and  lelt  her 
hand  drop.  On  her  lover's  asking  her  why  she  hesitated,  she 
blushed  deeply,  and  said,  Phoroneus  told  me  I  look  best  in 
myrtie. 

Innoc«Tit  and  simple  and  most  sweet  (I  remember)  was 
lier  voice,  and  when  she  had  spoken  the  traces  of  it  were 
remaining  on  her  lips.  Her  beautiful  throat  itself  clianged 
colour :  it  seemed  to  undulate ;  and  the  roseate  predominated 
in  its  pearly  hue.  Phoroneus  had  been  her  admirer:  she 
gave  the  preference  to  Critolaus :  yet  the  name  of  Phoroneus 
at  that  moment  had  greater  effect  upon  him  than  the  re- 
collection  of  his  defeat. 

Thelymnia  recovered  herself  sooner.  We  ran  wherever 
we  saw  myrtles,  and  there  were  many  about,  and  she  took  a 
part  of  her  coronal  from  every  one  of  us,  smiling  on  each ; 
but  it  was  only  of  Critolaus  that  she  asked  if  he  thought 
that  myrtle  became  her  liest.  Phoronetts^  answered  he,  not 
without  melancholy,  is  infallible  as  Paris.  There  was  some- 
thing in  the  tint  of  the  tender  sprays  resembling  that  of  the 
hair  they  encircled :  the  blossoms  too  were  white  as  her  fore- 
head. She  reminded  me  of  those  ancient  fables  which  repre- 
sent the  favorites  of  the  gods  as  turning  into  plants;  so  ac- 
cordant and  identified  was  her  beauty  with  the  flowers  and 
foliage  she  had  chosen  to  adorn  it 
Vol.  II.  No.  +.  C 


18 


imaginary  Cuncersatiofi. 


In  the  midst  of  our  felicitations  to  her  wc  heard  the 
approach  of  horses,  for  the  ground  was  dry  and  solid,  and 
Euthymedes  was  presently  with  us.  The  mountetl  »lave 
who  led  off  his  master's  charger,  for  such  he  appeared  to 
be  in  a\\  points,  suddenly  disappeared;  I  presume  lest  tile 
sight  of  luxury  should  corrupt  him.  I  know  not  where  the 
groom  rested,  nor  where  the  two  animals  (no  neglected  ones 
certainly,  for  they  were  plump  and  stately)  found  provender. 

Euthymedes  was  of  lofty  stature,  had  somewhat  passed 
the  middle  age,  but  the  Graces  had  not  left  his  person,  as 
they  usually  do  when  it  begins  to  bear  an  impression  of  au- 
thority. He  was  placed  by  the  side  of  Thelymnia.  Glad- 
ness and  expectation  sparkled  from  every  eye;  the  beauty 
of  Thelymnia  seemed  to  he  a  light  sent  from  heaven  for 
the  festival ;  a  light  the  pure  radiance  of  which  chcere<l  and 
replenisheil  the  whole  heart.  Desire  of  her  was  chastened,  I 
may  rather  say  was  removed,  by  the  confidence  of  Critolaus 
in  our  friendship. 

PANETIUS. 

Well  said !  The  story  begins  to  please  and  interest  me. 
Where  Love  finds  the  soul  he  neglects  tlie  body,  and  only 
turns  to  it  in  his  idleness  as  to  an  afterthought-  Its  best 
allurements  are  but  the  nuts  and  figs  of  the  divine  repast. 

POLYBIUS. 

We  exulted  in  the  felicity  of  our  friend,  and  wished 
for  nothing  which  even  he  would  not  have  granted.  Happy 
still  was  the  man  from  whom  the  glancing  eye  of  Thelymnia 
seemed  to  ask  some  advice,  how  she  should  act  or  answer! 
Happy  he  who,  offering  her  an  apple  in  the  midst  of  her 
discourse,  fixed  his  keen  survey  upon  the  next,  anxious  to 
mark  where  she  had  touched  it !  For  it  wa.s  a  calamity 
to  doubt  upon  what  streak  or  speck,  while  she  was  inatten- 
tive to  the  basket,  she  had  placed  her  finger. 

PANETIUS. 
I  wish,  Emilianus,  you  would  look  rather  more  severely 
than  you  do  .  . .  upon  my  life  I   I   cannot .  . .  and  put  an  end 
to   these    dithyrambics.     The  ivy  runs  about   us,   and   may 
infuriate  us. 


Imaginary  Conoertation^ 


19 


SCIPIO. 
Tlie  dithyrambics,    I   do  ussure  you,    Panetius,    are  not 
of  my  composing.     Wc  arc  both  in  danger  from    the   same 
thyrsus:    we  will  parry  it  as    well  as  we  can,  or  Iwnd  our 
heads  before  it. 

PANETIUS. 

Come,  Polybius,  we  must  follow  you  theUt  I  eec,  or 
Sy  you. 

HOLYBIUS. 
Would  you  rather  hear  the  remainder  another  time  ? 

PANETIUS. 
By  Hercules  !    I  have  mure  curiosity  than  becomes  me. 

POLYBIUS. 

No  doubt,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  Euthymedes 
had  made  the  discovery  we  hoped  to  obviate.  Never  was 
his  philosophy  more  amiable  or  more  impressive.  Pleasure 
was  treated  as  a  friend,  not  as  a  master :  many  things  were 
found  innocent  that  hod  long  been  doubtful :  excesses  alone 
were  condemned.  Thclvmnia  wa.s  enchanted  by  the  frank- 
ness and  liberality  of  her  philosopher,  altho,  when  it  was  her 
he  addressed,  more  purity  and  perhaps  mure  rigour  were  dis- 
cernible. His  delicacy  was  exquisite.  When  his  eyes  met 
hers,  they  did  not  retire  with  rapidity  and  confusion,  but 
softly  and  complacently,  and  as  tho  it  were  the  proper  time 
and  season  of  reposing,  from  the  splendours  they  had  encoun- 
tered. Hers  from  the  beginning  were  less  governable:  when 
she  found  that  they  were  so,  she  contrived  scheme  after  scheme 
for  diverting  them  from  the  table,  and  entertaining  his  unob- 
iervedly. 

The  higher  part  of  the  quarry,  which  had  protected  us 
always  from  the  western  siui,  was  coveretl  with  birch  nnd 
hazel,  the  lower  with  innumerable  shrubs,  principally  the 
arbutus  and  myrtle. 

Look  at  those  goats  abave  utf,  Haid  Tiielymnia.  What 
has  tatt^led  their  hair  so'!'  thetj  seem  wet. 

They  have  beett  tying  on  ttte  viatus  in  the  plaiu-.  replied 
Euthymedes;  many  of  ittf  broken  Jtowcrs  are  sticking  upon 


20 


Ittmginary  Condensation. 


fheni  yet^   resisting  aii  the  efforts^  as  ymt  ac«,  tif  hwtf  and 
tongue. 

How  beauteous,  said  »be,  are  the  Jie^vUtle  and  crimson 
branches  of  this  arbutus,  taking  it  in  one  hand  tiiid  beat- 
ing with  it  the  back  of  the  other.  It  seems  only  to  have 
come  out  of  its  crefice  to  pat  my  shoulder  at  dinner,  and 
twitch  my  myrtle  when  my  head  leant  hack.  I  wonder 
how  it  can  gww  in  sttch  o  rock. 

The  arbutus,  answered  he,  clings  to  the  earth  ipith  the 
most  fondness  where  it  finds  her  in  the  worst  ftoverty,  and 
covers  her  beivintered  bosom  with  leaves,  berries,  awl  Jtotrerv. 
On  the  same  branch  is  unripe  fruit  of  the  most  vivid  green  ; 
ripenings  of  the  richest  orange  i  ripened,  of  perfect  svarlet. 
The  mnidens  of  Tyre  could  nei^er  give  so  briiiiant  and  sweet 
a  lustre  to  the  Recces  of  Miletus;  nor  did  they  ever  string 
such  even  and  graceful  pearls  as  the  blossoms  are,  for  the 
brides  of  Assyrian  nr  Persian  kings. 

And  yet  the  myrtle  is  preferred  to  the  arbtttns,  said  The- 
lymnia,  with  some  slight  uneasiness. 

/  knoir  why,  replied  he  .  .  may  I  tell  ii?  She  bowed  and 
smiled,  perhaps  not  without  tlie  cx])ectation  of  some  compli- 
uient.  He  coittinued  .  .  The  myrtle  has  done  what  the  ar- 
hutus  comes  tint  late  fur.  T/te  myrtle  has  cavf.red  with  her 
starry  crown  the  beloved  of  the  reaper  and  vintager:  the 
myrtle  was  around  the  head  of  many  a  maiden  celebrated 
in  song,  when  the  breezes  of  autumn  scattered  t tie  first  leaves 
and  rustled  atmmgst  them  on  t/te  grajmd,  and  when  she  cried 
timidly,  Rise,  rise*  people  are  coming!  /tere !  there!  many! 

Thelvmnia  said,  Tfiat  tunc  is  not  true.  Wfiere  did  you 
hear  ti?  and  in  a  softer  and  lower  voice,  if  I  may  trust 
Androcles,   0  Euthymedes,  do  not  Mieve  it! 

Kitbcr  he  did  not  hear  her,  or  dissembled  it ;  and  went 
on..  This  deserves  preference;  this  deserves  immortality; 
this  deserves  a  place  in  the  temple  of  Venus;  in  her  hand, 
in  her  hair,  in  her  breast :   Tlieiymnia  herself  wears  it. 

Wl'  Uughed  and  applauded ;  she  blushed  and  looked 
grave  and  sighed  .  .  for  she  had  never  heard  any  one,  I  ima- 
gine, talk  wi  long  at  once.  Houevcr  it  wati,  j-he  sighed  :  I 
saw  aiui  heard  her  Oitolaus  pflvc  her  some  ghmccs:  she 
did    not    calcli    them       One   of  the  party   elappcd    his    hands 


imnginary  Cnnvernatiitn. 


21 


longer  than  the  rest,  whether  in  ajipmbntiun  or  derision  of 
this  rhapsody,  deliveretl  with  glee  and  melo*ly,  and  en- 
trt-alfd  tlie  philfKtopher  to  indulge  us  with  a  few  of  his 
adventures. 

Voti  rfp/ferfTtr,  youii^  matu  said  Euthymedes  gravely,  fn 
hnve  as  few  as  I  have  had,  you  whose  idle  cur'nmity  irnnM 
thus  intern perately  reveal  the  ttumt  sacred  myHteries.  Pttetx 
and  philosophers  may  reasfm  on  love^  and  dream  about  iV, 
hut  rarely  do  they  possess  the  object^  and^  ifht*iiei'er  they  doy 
that  tAfject  is  the  invisible  deity  of  a  silent  worshiper. 

Reanon  then  or  dream,  replied  the  other,  breathing  an  air 
of  scorn  to  soothe  the  soreness  of  the  reproof. 

IVhen  we  reason  on  lot^,  said  Euthyniedes,  tte  often  talk 
09  if  we  were  dreaming:  let  me  try  whether  the  recital  nf 
my  dream  can  make  you  think  /  talk  as  if  I  were  reasoning, 
you  viay  call  it  a  dream^  n  vision,  or  what  yon  wilf. 

I  was  in  a  place  not  very  unlike  this,  iny  head  lying 
AittHfc  against  a  rock,  where  its  crevires  were  tufted  with  soft 
and  odoriferous  herbs,  and  where  vineleaves  protected  my  face 
froni  the  sun,  and  from  the  bees,  which  however  were  less 
tikely  to  molest  me,  Iwing  Ijusy  in  their  first  hours  of  honeys 
tnaking  among  the  blossonts.  SU^ep  stunt  fell  njjon  me ;  for 
of  all  philosophers  I  am  certainly  the  dntwsiest,  tho  perhaps 
there  are  many  quite  of  etfual  tdnlity  in  communicating  the 
gift  of  drowsiness.  Presently  I  sow  three  figures,  two  of 
which  were  beautiful,  eery  differently,  but  in  the  same  de- 
gree: the  other  was  much  less  so.  The  least  of  the  three, 
at  ttie  first  glance,  I  recognised  to  tte  Love,  nltho  I  saw  no 
wings,  nor  arrows,  nor  quttrer,  nor  torch,  nor  emblem  of  any 
kind  designating  his  atirihttes.  The  next  was  twt  Venus, 
nor  a  Grace,  nor  a  Nymph,  nor  Goddess  of  whmn  in  worship 
or  meditation  I  had  ever  conceived  an  idea ;  afid  yet  my 
heart  persuaded  me  she  was  a  Goddess,  and  fj-om  the  manner 
in  which  she  spoke  to  lAtvc,  U7td  he  again  to  her,  I  was  con- 
rhwrd  she  must  Ite.  Quietly  and  untnovedly  as  she  was 
standing,  her  figure  I  perceived  was  adapted  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  activity.  With  all  the  succtilettre  and  suppleness 
of  early  youth,  scarcely  Iniyond  puberty,  it  however  gace 
me  the  idea,  from  its  graceful  and  easy  languor,  of  its  betnt/ 
posMStwd  by  a  fondness  for  repose      Her  ctfcs  were  targe  and 


22 


Imagiwiry  Conversation. 


serene,  not  of  a  r/unlltnf  to  exhibit  the  inteniUy  of  tkaughtj 
or  even  the  habitude  of  rejlexifm^  nor  vapahle  of  expresHing 
the  plenitude  of  joy ;  mid  her  countenance  teas  tinged  with 
Vft  delicate  a  colour,  that  it  appeared  an  eplttence  from  an 
irradiated  cloudy  passing  over  it  in  the  heavens.  The  third 
JigtirCy  who  sometimes  stood  in  one  place  and  sometimes  in 
another^  and  of  whose  amntenance  I  could  only  distinguish 
thai  it  was  pale  aiuvions  and  mistrustful^  interrupted  her 
perpetuatiy.  I  listened  attentively  and  with  cnriosity  to  the 
coneersation,  and  by  degrees  I  caught  the  appellations  they 
interchanged.  The  one  i  found  was  Hope;  atid  I  wondered 
I  did  not  find  it  out  sooner:  the  other  was  Fear;  which  I 
shtmld  not  have  found  out  at  oil;  for  she  did  not  took  ter- 
rible nor  aghast,  hut  more  like  Soi'row  or  Despondency.  The 
first  wards  J  could  collect  of  Hope  were  these,  spoken  very 
mildlyy  and  rather  with  a  Utok  of  appeal  than  of  accusation. 
Too  Hurely  you  have  forgotten,  for  never  was  cfiild  more  forget- 
ful or  more  ungrateful,  how  many  timejt  I  have  carried  you  in 
my  bosom,  when  even  your  mother  drove  you  from  her,  and 
when  you  could  fnd  no  other  resting-place  in  heaven  or  earth. 

O  unsieddy  unruly  Lffvc!  cried  the  pale  Goddess  with 
much  energy,  it  has  often  been  by  my  intervention  that  thy 
wavering  authority  wasf.vt.  For  this  I  hove  thrown  alarm 
after  alarm  into  the  heedless  breast  that  Hope  had  once  be.' 
guiled,  and  that  was  growing  insensible  and  torpid  under 
her  feebler  influence.  I  do  not  upbraid  thee;  and  it  never 
was  my  nature  to  caress  thee;  but  I  claim  from  thee  my 
portion  of  the  human  heart,  mine,  ever  vane,  abhorrent  as 
it  may  be  of  me.  Let  Hope  stand  tm  one  side  of  thy  altars, 
but  let  my  place  be  on  the  other ;  or  I  swear  by  oil  the  gttds! 
7iot  any  altar  shaft  thou  possess  upon  the  globe. 

She  ceased  .  .  and  Love  trembled.  He  turned  his  eyes 
upon  Hope,  as  if  in  hiji  turn  appealing  to  her.  She  said.  It 
must  Im  so ;  it  was  so  from  the  twinning  of  the  world:  tmly 
let  me  never  lose  you  from  my  sight.  She  clasped  her  hands 
upon  her  breast,  as  she  said  it,  and  he  looked  on  her  with  a 
smile,  and  was  going  up  (/  thought)  to  Iciss  her,  when  he 
was  recalled  anti  stopped. 

Where  Love  i>,  there  will  I  lie  also,  fiaid  Fear,  and  even 
thoUf  O  Hope !  never  shall  be  fieyond  my  power. 


hnoffinartj  Converaaiioti . 


93 


At  fhrnf  trnrdit  I  trnw  them  im/h  depart.  I  then  looked 
toward  Lore:   J  did  not  see  him  go;  hut  he  teas  gone^ 

The  narration  being  ended,  there  were  iwjme  who  re- 
tntirt(e<l  what  very  odd  thin^  dreams  arc:  but  Thelvimiiii 
luuked  almost  as  if  she  herself  was  dreaming;  aud  Alcimus, 
who  sat  opposite,  and  fancied  slie  was  |X}nderinj;  on  what 
the  vision  eould  mean,  said  it  appeared  to  hini  a  thing  next 
to  certainty,  tlmt  it  signified  how  love  cannot  exist  without 
hope  or  without  fear.  Euihvraedes  nodded  assent,  and  as- 
sured him  that  a  soothsayer  in  great  repute  had  given  the 
same  interpretation.  Upon  which  the  younger  friends  of 
Alcimus  immediately  took  the  ivy  from  his  forehead,  and 
crowned  him  with  laurel,  as  being  worthy  to  serve  Ajxillo. 
But  they  did  it  with  so  much  noise  and  festivity,  that,  before 
the  operation  was  completed,  he  Ix^n  to  suspect  they  were 
in  jest.  Thelvmnift  had  listened  to  many  stories  in  her  life- 
time, yet  never  had  she  heard  one  from  any  man  before  who 
had  been  favoured  by  the  deities  witli  a  vision.  Hope  and 
l«OTe,  as  her  exciti-d  imagination  represented  them  to  her, 
iieeined  still  to  be  with  Euthymedes.  She  thought  the  tale 
vould  have  been  better  without  the  mention  of  Pear:  but 
perhaps  this  part  was  only  a  dream,  all  the  rest  a  really  true 
vision.  She  had  many  things  to  ask  Iiim :  she  did  not  know 
when,  nor  exactly  what,  for  she  was  aA*aid  of  putting  too 
hard  a  question  to  him  in  the  presence  of  so  many,  lest  it 
might  abash  him  if  he  could  not  answer  it :  but  she  wislied 
to  ask  him  something,  anything.  She  soon  did  it,  not  witli- 
out  faltering,  and  was  enchanted  by  the  frankness  and  libe- 
rality of  her  philosopher. 

Did  you  ever  love  any  one  ?  said  she  smiling,  tho  not 
iuclinetl  to  smile,  but  doing  it  to  conceal  (as  in  her  simplicity 
she  thought  it  would)  her  blushes,  and  looking  a  little  aside, 
at  the  only  cloud  in  the  heavens,  which  crossed  the  moon, 
as  if  adorning  her  for  a  festival,  with  a  fillet  of  pale  sapphire 
and  interlucent  gold. 

/  thought  I  didt  replied  he,  lowering  his  eyes  that  she 
might  lower  hers  to  rest  upon  him. 

Do  then  people  ever  doubt  this?  she  asked  in  wonder, 
looking  full  in  his  face  with  earnest  curiosity. 

Alnai    said     he    softly,     until   few    hour*    agOf     until 


'21 


Im4tffi7Mry  Cvnversatiwi. 


Thphjn 


placed  hesitle  mv^   uvtH 


cr^Mjaed  the  trettiture  that  should  have  dwelt  within  it,  to  the 
tarnish  itf  a  strttngery  if  that  stranger  hud  the  bnsetiess  to 
employ  the  mphi^try  that  was  in  port  ejepected  from  himy 
necer  sliould  I  hove  known  that  I  had  not  loved  before.  HV 
may  Ite  uncertain  if  a  wcwc  or  an  image  be  of  the  ru)hest 
fnefal,  until  the  richest  metal  be  set  right-again^t  it.  The^ 
lymnia !  if  I  tftought  it  pmsible,  at  any  time  hereafter,  that 
you  should  love  me  as  I  lame  you-,  I  would  exert  to  the  utter- 
moHt  my  humble  powers  of  perswjsion  to  avert  it. 

O .'  there  ?*  no  danger,  said  she,  disconcerted ;  /  do  not 
love  any  one:  I  thought  I  did,  like  you ;  but  indeed,  indeed, 
Euthymedes,  I  was  equally  in  an  error.  Wometi  have  dntpt 
into  the  grave  from  it,  and  /lave  declared  to  the  Ifist  moment 
that  they  never  loved :  men  have  sworn  they  should  die  with 
desperation,  and  have  lived  merrily,  and  have  dared  to  run 
into  the  peril  fifty  tiniev.  Tftey  fiave  hard  cold  hearts,  in- 
eommunicative  and  distrustful. 

Have  I  /«*,  Thelymniu?  gently  he  expostulated. 

No,  not  you,  said  she ;  you  may  believe  J  was  not  thiufc^ 
ing  of  you  when  I  was  speaking.  But  the  idea  does  really 
matce  me  smile  nnd  almost  laugh,  that  you  should  fear  me, 
Kupposiug  it  possible,  if  you  rould  suppose,  any  snrk  thirtg. 
Love  does  rtol  kill  men,  take  my  uftrd  for  it. 

He  looked  rather  in  sorrow  than  in  doubt,  and  answered : 
Vnpropitious  U/ve  may  not  kill  us  always,  may  not  deprive 
us  at  once  of  what  at  ttieir  festivals  the  idie  and  inconsi- 
derate call  life;  but,  O  Thelymnia!  our  lives  are  truly  ai 
an  end  when  we  are  beloved  no  longer,  E^vistence  may  be 
contintted  or  rattier  may  be  renewed,  yet  the  agonies  of  death 
and  the  chilliness  of  the  grace  hnve  been  past  thro;  nor 
are  there  Elysian  fields,  nor  the  sports  tltnt  delighted  in 
former  times,  awaiting  us,  nor  pleasant  eonversct  nor  walks 
with  linked  hands,  nor  intermitted  songs,  nor  vengeful  kisses 
for  leaving  t/iem  off  abruptly,  nor  looks  that  shake  us  to 
assure  us  aftertcard,  nor  that  bland  inquietude^  as  gefifly 
tremulous  as  ttie  expansion  of  buds  into  blossoms,  which  hur- 
ries us  from  repose  to  e.rercise  and  from  e-rercise  to  rtrjHtsc. 

0!  J  have  been  very  near  loving!  cried  Thelymuia.  Where 
in  the  world  can  a  philosopher  have  learnt  all  this  about  it  f 


IfoagiHafy  Conaertotitm. 


25 


I 


The  bcnutv  "f  Thclyiunia,  her  blushes,  first  at  the  dcct^it, 
afterward  at  the  eiictjuragenicnt  she  receivctl  in  her  replies, 
and  lastly  from  some  other  thing»  which  we  could  not  pene- 
trate, highly  gratified  Critolaus.  Soon  however  (for  wine 
always  brings  back  to  us  our  last  strong  feeling)  be  thought 
again  of  Thoroneus,  as  young,  as  handsome,  and  once  (is  that 
the  word?)  as  dear  to  her.  He  saddened  at  the  myrtle  on 
the  head  of  his  beloved ;  it  threw  shadows  and  gloom  upon 
his  soul;  her  smiles,  her  spirits,  her  wit,  above  all  her  uods 
of  approbiition  wounded  him.  He  sighed  when  she  covered 
her  face  with  her  hand;  when  she  disclosed  it  he  sighed 
again.  Every  glance  of  pleasure,  every  turn  of  surprise, 
every  movement  of  her  body,  pained  and  oppressed  Mm. 
He  cursed  in  his  heart  whoever  it  was  who  had  stuffed 
that  portion  of  the  couch ;  there  was  ao  little  moss*  thought 
he,  between  Thelymnia  and  Euthymedes.  He  might  have 
•een  Atbos  port  them,    and  would  have  murmured  still. 

The  rest  of  us  were  in  admiration  at  the  facility  and  grace 
with  which  Thelymuia  sustained  her  part,  and  observing  less 
Critolaus  than  we  did  in  the  commencement,  when  he  ac- 
knowledged and  enjoyetl  our  transports,  indifferently  and 
contentedly  saw  him  rise  from  the  table  and  go  away, 
thinking  his  departure  a  prccuncerted  section  of  the  stra- 
tagem. He  retired,  as  he  told  us  afterward,  into  a  grot. 
So  totally  was  his  mind  abstracted  from  the  entertainment, 
he  left  the  table  athirst,  covered  as  it  was  with  fruit  and 
wine,  and  abundant  as  ran  beside  us  the  clearest  and  sweetest 
and  most  refreshing  rill.  He  related  to  me  that,  at  the 
extremity  of  the  cavern,  he  applied  his  parched  tongue  to 
the  drippbg  rock,  shunning  the  light  of  day,  the  voice  of 
friendship,  so  %'iolent  was  bis  desire  of  solitude  ajid  con- 
cealment, and  he  held  bis  forehead  and  his  palms  against  it 
when  his  bps  had  closed.  We  knew  not  and  suspected  not 
his  fccbngs  at  the  time,  and  rejoiced  at  the  anticipation  of 
the  silly  things  a  philosopher  should  have  whispered,  which 
Thelymnia  in  the  morning  of  the  festival  had  promised  us 
to  detail  the  next  day. 

After  the  lesson  be  had  been  giving  her.  which  amused 
her  in  the  dictation,  she  stood  composed  and  thoughtful, 
and    then   said   hesitatinglv,    But  ivmtld  it  be  qttife  ri^hif 

Vol,.  IT.  No.  \.  '      D 


96 


Ima^nary  Cottversti/toti. 


woiUd  there  be  twthing  of  hisince.rittj  and  faUehood  in  i/, 
my  Critolaus  ?  He  caught  her  up  in  liis  arms,  Hi»d,  as  in 
his  enthufiiasm  ho  had  raised  her  head  above  his,  he  kissed 
her  bosom.  She  reproved  and  pardoned  him,  making  him 
first  declare  and  protest  he  would  never  do  the  like  again. 
O  soul  of  truth  and  delicacy !  cried  he  aloud ;  and  Thelymaia, 
no  doubt,  tremble<l  lest  her  lover  :thould  in  a  moment  be 
forsworn ;  so  imminent  and  inevitable  seemed  the  repetition 
of  his  offense.  But  he  observed  on  her  eyelashes,  what  had 
arisen   from  his   precipitation  in  our  presence, 

A  hesitating  long-suspended  tear. 

Like  that  which  hangs  upon  the  vine  fresh-pruned. 

Until  the  morning  kisses  it  away. 

The  Nymphs,  who  often  drive  men  wild,  they  tell  us,  have 
led  me  astray:  I  must  return  with  you  to  the  grot.  We 
gave  every  facility  to  the  stratagem.  One  slipt  away  in  one 
direction,  another  in  another;  but,  at  a  certain  distance,  each 
was  desirous  of  joining  some  comrade,  and  of  laughing  to- 
gether ;  yet  each  reproved  the  laughter,  even  when  far  off, 
lest  it  should  do  harm,  reserving  it  for  the  morrow.  Pane* 
tius,  you  have  seen  the  mountains  on  the  left  hand,  east- 
ward, when  you  are  in  Olynipin,  and  perhaps  the  little 
stream  that  runs  from  the  nearest  of  them  into  the  Alpheus. 
Could  you  have  seen  them  that  evening!  the  moon  never 
shone  so  calmly,  so  brightly,  upon  Ijatmos.  nor  the  torch 
of  Love  before  her.  And  yet  many  of  the  stars  were  visible; 
the  most  beautiful  amongst  them ;  and  as  £uth3rmedes  taught 
Thelymnia  their  names,  their  radiance  seemed  more  joyous, 
more  effulgent,  more  beneficent.  If  you  have  ever  walked 
forth  into  the  wilds  and  open  plains  upon  such  moonlight 
nights,  cautious  as  you  are,  I  will  venture  to  say,  Panetius, 
you  have  often  tript,  even  tho  the  stars  were  not  your 
study.  There  was  an  arm  to  support  or  to  catch  The- 
lymnia; yet  she  seemed  incorrigible.  Euthymcdes  wbk  pa- 
tient :  at  last  he  did  I  know  not  what,  which  was  followed  by 
a  reproof,  and  a  wonder  how  he  could  have  done  so,  and 
another  how  be  could  answer  it.  He  looked  ingennously  and 
apologetically,  forgetting  to  correct  his  fault  in  the  mean- 
while. She  listened  to  him  attentively,  pushing  his  hand 
away  at  intervals,  yet  less  frequently   and   less  resolutely  in 


Imaginary  Cotivertation 


a? 


ihe  course  of  his  remonstrance,  particularly  when  he  com- 
plained to  her  that  the  finer  and  more  delicate  part  of  ub^ 
the  eye,  may  wander  at  leisure  over  what  is  in  its  way ; 
yet  that  it<t  dependents  iu  the  corporeal  system  mufit  not 
follow  it;  that  they  roust  hunger  and  faint  in  the  service 
of  B  power  so  ridi  and  abwtute.  This  being  kard^ 
unjuMty  and  crueU  said  he,  never  can  be  the  ordinance  of 
the  gods.  Love  alone  feeds  the  famishing;  Love  alone 
places  all  things,  both  of  matter  and  of  mind,  in  perfect 
harmony  i  Love  hath  less  to  learn  from  Wisdom  than  Wisdom 
hath  to  learn  from  Love. 

Modest  man !  said  she  to  herself,  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  truth  in  what  he  says,  considering  he  is  a  philosopher. 
She  then  asked  him,  after  n  pause,  why  he  had  not  spoken 
eo  in  the  conversation  on  love,  which  appeared  to  give  ani- 
mation, mirth,  and  wit  to  the  dullest  of  the  company,  and 
even  to  make  the  wines  of  Chios,  Crete,  and  Lesbos,  sparkle 
with  fresh  vivacity  in  their  goblets. 

/  who  teas  placed  by  the  fountain-head.,  replied  he, 
had  no  inclination  to  follow  the  shallow  and  slender  stream, 
taking  its  course  toward  streets  and  lanes,  and  dipt  into 
and  muddied  by  nnhallowed  and  uncleanly  hands.  After 
dimier  such  topics  are  usually  introduced,  when  the  objects 
that  ought  to  inspire  our  juster  sentiments  are  gone  away. 
An  indelicacy  worse  than  Thracian  f  The  purest  gales  of 
heaven^  in  the  most  perfect  solitudes,  should  alone  lift  up 
the  aspiration  of  our  souls  to  the  divinities  all  men  worship. 

Sensible  creature  f  sighed  Thelymnia  in  her  bosom,  how 
rightly  he  does  think! 

Come^  fairest  of  wanderers.,  whispered  he  softly  and  per- 
suasively, such  will  I  call  you,  tho  the  stars  hear  me,  and 
tho  the  gods  too  i7i  a  night  like  this  pursue  their  laves  upmi 
earth  .  .  the  nuyon  has  no  tittle  pooh  filled  with  her  lights 
under  the  rock  yonder ;  she  deceives  us  in  the  depth  of  these 
hollows,  like  the  limpid  sea.  Besides,  we  are  here  among 
the  pinks  and  aand-roses:  do  they  never  prick  your  ancles 
ttith  their  dry  stems  and  thorns  **  Even  their  leaves  at  this 
late  seasim  are  enough  to  hurt  you. 

J  think  they  doy  replied  she,  and  thanked  him,  with  a 
tender  timid  glance;  for  some  fresh  security  his  arm  or  hand 


:28 


Imagifutry  Conifersatum. 


had  'given  her  in  escaping  from  them.  0  now  tee  arc  quite 
Qut  of  them  all!  How  cool  is  the  sruiifrage!  how  cool  the 
ivtf4eavea ! 

I  faiiry^  my  sweet  schuiar !  or  »haU  I  rather  nay  {for 
yitu  have  been  nn  uftener)  my  sweet  teacher!  they  are  Jiot 
ivy-leaves :  to  me  they  aftpenr  to  be  periwincles. 

I  will  gather  some  and  se-e^  said  Thelyninia. 

Periwincles  cover  wide  and  deep  hoUoMfs :  of  what  are 
they  incapable  when  the  convolvulus  is  in  league  willi  them ! 
She  slipt  from  the  nrm  of  Kuthymedeit,  and  in  an  inntant 
had  disappeared.     In  an  instant  too  he  had  followed. 

PANETIU.S. 
These  are  mad  pranks,  and  always  end  ill.  Mounlightij  I 
cannot  we  see  them  quietly  from  the  tops  of  our  Iiouses,  or 
from  the  plain  pavement.'  Must  we  give  challenge!*  to 
niastifTs,  make  appointinents  with  wolves,  run  after  asps, 
and  languish  for  tttonequarries  ?  Unwary  pliilubopher  and 
Hniplc  girl !      Were   they  found  again  r 

POLYBIUS. 
Yea,  by  Castor !  and  most  unwillingly. 

8CIPIO. 

I  do  not  wonder.  When  the  bones  arc  broken,  without 
the  consolation  of  some  great  service  rendered  in  such  mi*- 
fortune,  and  when  beauty  must  become  deformity,  I  can 
well  believe  that   they  both  would  rather  have  j»erished. 

POLYBIUS. 

Amaranth  on  the  couch  of  .Jove  and  Hebe  was  never 
softer  than  (he  bod  they  fell  on.  Critolaus  had  advanced 
to  the  opening  of  bin  cavern  :  he  had  heard  the  exclamation 
of  Thelymnia  as  she  was  falling .  .  he  forgave  her  .  .  he  ran  to 
her  for  her  forgiveness  .  .  he  heard  some  low  sounde  .  .  he 
smote  his  heart,  or  it  had  fainted  in  him  .  -  he  stopt. 

Euthymedes  was  raising  up  Thelymnia,  forgetful  (as 
wan  loo  apparent)  of  himself.  Traitor!  exdamed  the  firjr 
Critolaus,  thy  hU>od  ahail  pay  for  thu.  Impostor !  whose 
lesson  this  oery  day  was,  that  luxury  is  the  worst  of  poisons  ' 

Critolaus-,  answered  he  calmly,  drawing  his  robe  aboiii 
him,  we  will  not  talk  of  blood.     As  for  my  lessoti  of  today^ 


ImagnMty  Cunveritaiwti. 


29 


/  must  defend  it.  In  few  words  then,  vince  I  tkhik  we 
art'  none  af  us  disposed  for  mant/y  hetnlork  ditfs  not  hurt 
guatst  nor  tu.vury  phihsup/iers. 

Thelymiiia  hat!  risen  inori'  beautiful  from  her  confuHlon  ; 
but  her  colour  soon  uciit  nwuv»  and,  if  any  slight  trace  of 
il  were  remaining  on  her  checks,  the  modest  moonlight  and 
the  severer  stars  would  lot  none  shew  itself.  She  looked  at) 
the  statue  of  Pyj^malion  would  have  looked,  had  she  been 
destined  the  hour  after  aoiniation  to  return  into  her  inani- 
mate state.  Offering  no  excuse,  she  was  the  worthier  of 
pardon :  hut  there  is  one  hour  in  which  pardon  never  en- 
tered the  human  heart,  and  that  hour  was  this.  Critolaus, 
who  always  had  ridiculed  the  philosophers,  now  hated  thetn 
from  the  bottom  of  his  heart.  Every  sect  was  detestable 
to  him;  the  Stoic,  the  Platonic,  the  Epicurean,  the  Eclectic; 
All  equally ;  but  one  above  the  rest,  which  he  would  not 
desigjnate  to  his  most  intimate  friend,  and  this  sect  is  deno- 
minated, not  from  portico  or  grove  or  garden,  but  from  a 
single  plant,  and   we  know  it  by  the  name  of  the  Robust. 

PANETIUS. 

We  do  not  desire  to  hear  what  such  foolish  men  think 
of  philosophers,  true  or  false,  but  pray  tell  us  how  he  acted 
on  his  own  notable  discovery;  for  I  opine  he  was  the  un- 
likeliest  of  the  three  to  grow  quite  calm  on  a  sudden. 

POLYBITTS. 

He  went  away ;  nol  without  some  fierce  glances  at  the 
stars,  some  reproaches  to  the  gods  themselves,  and  serious 
and  sad  reflexions  upon  destiny.  Being  however  a  pious 
man,  by  constitution  and  education,  he  thought  he  had 
spoken  of  the  omens  unadvisedly,  and  found  other  interpre- 
tations for  the  stones  we  had  tlirowu  down  witli  the  ivy. 
And  ah !  said  lie  sighing,  the  birtJCs  nest  of  last  year  too ! 
I  now  know  tvhat  that  is! 

PANETIUS. 

PolyWuA,  I  considered  you  too  grave  a  man  to  rejiort 
»uch  idle  utories.  The  manner  is  not  yours;  I  rather  think 
you  have  torn  out  a  page  nr  two  from  some  love-feast  (not 
generally  known)  of  Plain. 


30 


ImagifMry  CofiversaUon. 


POLYBIUS. 

Your  judgement  has  for  once  deserted  you,  my  friend. 

If    Plato    had    been    present,    he   might    then    indeed    have 

described  what  he  saw,  and  elegantly ;   but  if  he  had  feigned 

the  story,   the  name  that  most  interests  us  woiUd  not  have 

.  ended  with  a  vowel. 

SCIPIO. 
You  convince  me,  Polybius. 

PANETIUS. 
1  join  my  hands,  and  give  them  to  you. 

POLYBIUS. 

My  usual  manner  is  without  variety.  I  endeavour  to 
collect  as  much  sound  sense  and  as  many  solid  fact«  as  I  can, 
to  distribute  ihem  as  cummodiou&ly,  and  to  keep  them  as 
dear  of  ornauiunt.  If  any  one  thought  of  me  or  my  style 
in  reading  my  history,  I  should  condemn  myself  as  a  de- 
feated man. 

SCIPIO. 

Polybius,  you  are  by  far  the  wisest  that  ever  wrote  his- 
tory, tho  many  wise  have  written  it,  and  if  your  facts  are 
sufficiently  abundant,  your  work  will  be  the  most  interesting 
and  important. 

POLYBIUS. 
Live  then,  Scipio. 

PANETIUS. 

The  gods  grant  it  ! 

POLYBIUS. 

I  know  what  I  can  do  and  what  I  cannot  (the  proudest 
words  jjcrhapb  that  ever  raan  utteretl)  I  say  it  plainly  to  you, 
my  sincere  and  kind  monitor;  but  you  must  also  let  mc  say 
that,  doubtful  whether  I  could  amuse  our  Emtlianus  in  his 
present  mood,  I  would  borrow  a  talc,  unaccustomed  as  I  am  to 
such,  from  the  library  of  Miletus,  or  snatch  it  from  the  bosom 
of  Elephanti^. 


imaginary  Cnnvfirgntion. 


SCI  PI  O. 

Your  fnenctship  conies  under  various  forms  to  mc,  my 
dear  Polybiua,  but  it  is  always  warm,  and  always  welcome. 
Nolbiug  can  be  kinder  or  more  judicious  in  you,  than  to 
diversify  as  much  as  jxissiWe  our  cjinvcrsation  this  day.  Pa- 
uetius  would  he  more  argumentative  on  luxury  than  I :  even 
£uthymedes  (it  apj>ears)  was  unanswerable. 

PAN  ET I  US. 

0  the  knave  !  such  men  bring  reproaches  upon  philosophy. 

8CIP10. 

1  see  no  more  reason  why  they  should,  than  why  a  wench 
rho  empties  a  chamber-pot  on  your  head  in  the  street,  shoidd 

make  you  cry,  0  Jupiter!  what  a  ciirse  itt  water. 

PANETIUS. 
I  am  ready  to  propose  almost  such  an  exchange  with  you, 
Emilianus,  as  Diomedesis  with  Glaucus  .  .  my  robe  for  yours. 

SCIPIO. 

Panetius,  could  it  be  done,  you  would  wish  it  undone. 
The  warfare  you  undertake  is  the  more  difHcult :  we  have  not 
enemies  on  both  aides,  aa  you  have. 

PANETIUS. 
If  you  had  seen  strait,  you  would  have  seen  that  the  offer 
was,   to  exchange  my  philosophy    for  yours.      You  need  less 
meditation,  and  employ  more,  than  any   man.     Now   if  you 
hare  aught  to  say  on  luxury,  let  me  hear  it. 

SCIPIO. 

It  would  be  idle  to  run  into  the  parts  of  it,  and  to  make  a 
definition  of  that  which  we  agiec  on ;  but  it  is  not  so  to 
remind  you  that  we  were  talking  of  it  in  soldiers;  for  the  plea- 
aant  tale  of  Thelymnia  is  enough  to  make  us  forget  them,  even 
vhile  the  trumpet  is  sounding.  Believe  me,  my  friend  {or 
ask  Polybius)  a  good  general  will  turn  this  formidable  thing, 
luxury,  to  some  account.  He  will  take  care  that,  like  the 
strong  vinegar  the  legionaries  carry  with  Vm,  it  shall  be 
diluted,  and  thus  be  useful. 


32  ^^/wffljErmory  Conversathtn. 

PANKTIUS. 

Tlien  iL  is  luxury  no  longer. 

SCIPIO. 

True ;  and  now  tell  me,  Panetius,  or  you  PoIyWus,  what 
city  was  ever  so  exuberant  in  richefi,  as  to  maintain  a  great 
army  long  together  in  sheer  luxury  ?  I  am  not  speaking  of 
cities  that  have  been  sacked,  but  of  the  allied  and  friendly, 
whose  interests  are  to  be  observed,  whose  affection  to  he  con- 
ciliatetl  and  retained.     Hannibal  knew  this,  and  minded  it. 

POLYBIUS. 

You  might  also  have  added  to  the  interrogation,  if  you 
had  thought  proper,  those  cities  which  have  been  jacked :  for 
there  plenty  is  soun  wasted,  and  not  soon  supplied  again. 

SCIPIO. 

Let  us  look  closer  at  the  soldiers  board,  and  see  what  is 
on  it  in  the  rich  Capua.  Is  plentiful  and  wholesome  food 
luxury  ?  or  do  soldiers  run  into  the  market-place  for  a  phea- 
sant ?  or  do  tho»e  on  whom  they  are  quartered  pray  and  press 
them  to  eat  it?  Suppose  they  went  hunting  quails,  hares, 
partridges;  would  it  render  them  less  active?  There  are  no 
wild  boars  in  that  neighbourhood,  or  we  might  expect  from  a 
boar-hunt  a  visitation  of  the  gout.  Suppose  the  men  drew 
their  idea  of  pleasure  from  the  school  or  from  the  practices  of 
Euthymedes.  One  vice  is  corrected  by  another,  where  a  higher 
principle  does  not  act,  and  wliere  a  man  does  not  exerl  the 
proudest  of  dominion  over  the  most  turbulent  of  states  .  .  his 
self.  Hannibal,  we  may  be  sure,  never  allowed  his  army  to 
repose  iii  utter  inactivity ;  no,  nor  to  remain  a  single  day 
nithuut  its  exercise  ■  .  a  battle,  a  march,  a  foraging,  a  convey- 
ance of  wood  or  water,  a  survey  of  the  banks  of  rivers,  a 
fathoming  of  their  depth,  a  certification  of  their  soundness 
or  their  unsnundneiis  at  bottom,  a  measurement  of  the  greater 
or  less  extent  of  their  fords,  a  review,  or  a  castrametation. 
The  plenty  of  his  camp  at  Capua  (for  you  hardly  can  ima- 
gine, Panetius,  that  the  soldiers  had  in  a  military  sense 
tlie  freedom  of  the  city,  and  took  what  they  pleased  witlioiit 
pav     and    without    restriction)    attached    to    him    the    various 


fmaginary  Conversation. 


S8 


nations  of  which  it  was  computed,  and  ke)it  together  the 
heterogeneous  and  discordant  umss.  It  was  time  that  he 
should  think  of  this  :  for  prohably  there  was  not  a  soldier  left, 
who  had  not  lost  in  battle  or  by  fatigue  his  dearest  friend  and 
comrade. 

Dry  bread  and  hard  blows  are  excellent  things  in  them- 
selves, and  military  requisites  .  .  to  those  who  converse  on 
thera  over  their  cups,  turning  their  heads  for  the  approbation 
of  others  on  whose  bosom  they  recline,  and  yawning  from  sad 
disquieted  at  the  degeneracy  and  effeminacy  of  the  age. 
But  there  is  finally  a  day  when  the  cement  of  power  begins  to 
lose  its  strength  and  coherency,  and  when  the  fabric  must  be 
kept  together  by  pointing  it  anew,  and  by  protecting  it  a  little 
from  that  rigour  of  the  seasons  which  at  first  compacted  it. 

The  story  of  Hannibal  and  his  army  wasting  away  in 
luxury,  is  common,  general,  universal  :  its  absurdity  is  re- 
tOArked  by  few,  or  rather  by  none. 

POLYBIUS. 

The  wisest  of  us  are  slow  to  disbelie^'c  what  we  have 
learnt  early  :  yet  tliis  story  has  always  been  to  mc  incredible. 

SCIPIO. 

Beside  the  reasons  I  have  adduced,  is  it  necessary  to 
remind  you  that  Campania  is  subject  to  diseases  which  inca^ 
pacitate  the  soldier?  Those  of  Hannibal  were  afflicted  by 
them ;  few  indeed  perished :  but  they  were  debilitated  by 
llicir  malady,  and  while  they  were  waiting  for  the  machinery 
which  (even  if  they  had  had  the  artificers  amongst  them) 
could  not  have  been  constructed  in  double  the  time  requisite 
for  importing  it,  the  period  of  dismay  at  Rome,  if  ever  it  ex- 
isted, had  elapsed.  The  wonder  is  less  that  Hannibal  did 
not  take  Rome,  than  that  he  was  able  to  remain  in  Italy,  not 
having  taken  it.  Considering  how  he  held  together,  how  he 
disciplined,  how  he  provisioned  (the  most  difficult  thing  of  all, 
in  the  face  of  such  enemies)  an  army  in  great  part,  as  one  would 
imagine,  so  intractable  and  wasteful ;  what  commanders,  what 
soldiers,  what  rivers,  and  what  mountains,  opposed  him  ;  I 
think,  Polybius,  you  will  hardly  admit  to  a  parity  or  compari- 
son with  him,  in  the  rare  union  of  political  and  military 
Vot.   II.  No.  4.  K 


34 


Imaginary  Cuncer^ation- 


»cieiiC4f,  tlie  most  di»linj;uUlieil  of  your  own  countrymen ;  iiol 
Philupeiueii  nor  Tiinolfoii  (tlie  man  who  approaclies  more 
nearly  to  the  gocU  than  aiiy)  our  Philip  of  Macedon  .  .  if  in- 
deed you  can  hear  nie  without  anger  and  indignation  name  m 
bai'bariau  king  with  Greeks. 

I'OLYBIUS. 

When  kings  are  docile,  and  pay  due  respect  to  those  who 
are  wiser  and  more  virtuous  than  themselves,  I  would  not 
point  at  them  as  objects  of  scorn  or  contumely,  even  among 
the  free.  There  is  little  danger  that  men  educated  as  we 
have  been  should  value  them  ton  highly,  or  that  men  edu- 
cated as  they  have  been  should  eclipse  the  glory  of  Timolcon 
and  Philopemen.  People  in  a  republic  know  that  their  power 
and  existence  must  depend  on  the  zeal  and  assiduity,  the 
courage  and  integrity,  of  those  they  employ  in  their  first 
offices  of  state:  kings  on  the  contrary  lay  the  foundations 
of  their  power  on  abject  hearts  and  prostituted  intellects,  and 
fear  and  abominate  those  wliuni  the  breath  of  God  hath  raised 
higher  than  the  breath  of  man.  Hence,  from  being  the  de- 
pendents of  their  own  slaves,  both  they  and  their  slaves  be- 
ctmie  at  last  the  dejx'ndents  of  free  nations,  and  alight  from 
their  cars  to  be  tietl  by  the  neck  to  tlie  cars  of  better  men. 

SCIPIO. 

Deplorable  condition !  if  their  education  had  allowed  any 
sense  of  honour  to  abide  in  them.  But  we  must  consider  them 
as  the  tulips  and  anemones  and  other  gaudy  flowers,  that  shoot 
from  the  earth  to  be  looked  upon  in  idleness,  and  to  be  snapt 
by  the  stick  or  broken  by  the  wind,  without  our  interest,  care, 
or  notice.  We  cannot  thus  calmly  contemplate  the  utter  sub- 
version of  a  mighty  capital;  we  cannot  thus  indifferently  stand 
over  the  strong  agony  of  an  expiring  nation,  after  a  gasp  of 
years  in  a  battle  of  ages,  to  win  a  world  or  be  for  ever  fallen. 

PANETIUS. 

You  estimate,  O  EmiHanus,  the  abilities  of  a  general,  not 
by  0»e  number  of  battles  he  has  won,  nor  of  enemies  he  hath 
slaiu  or  led  captive,  but  by  the  combinations  he  has  formed, 
the  blows  of  fortune  he  has  parried  or  avoided,  the  prejudices 


^fmaginary  Conxernatiofi. 


35 


he  has  removed,  and  the  dilHcultie!)  of  every  kind  he  has 
overcome.  In  like  manner  wc  should  consider  kings.  Edu- 
cated »tiU  more  barboroiuly  than  other  barbarians^  sucking 
their  milk  alternately  from  Vice  and  Folly,  guided  in  their 
first  steps  by  Duplicity  and  Flattery,  whatever  they  do  but 
decently  is  worthy  of  applause  ;  whatever  they  do  virtuously, 
of  admiration.  I  would  say  it  even  to  Caius  Gracchus ;  I 
would  tell  him  it  even  in  the  presence  of  his  mother ;  un- 
appalled  by  her  majestic  mien,  her  truly  Roman  sanctity,  her 
brow,  that  cannot  frown,  but  that  reproves  ivith  pity ;  for 
I  am  not  so  hostile  to  royalty  as  other  philosophers  are  .  . 
perhaps  because  I  have  been  willing  to  »ee  less  of  it. 

POLVBIUa 

Etcrna]  thanks  to  the  Romans  !  who,  whatever  rea&on 
they  may  have  had  to  treat  the  Greeks  as  enemies,  to  traverse 
and  persecute  such  men  as  Lycortas  my  father,  and  as  I'hilo- 
pcmcn  my  early  friend,  to  consume  our  cities  with  fire,  and 
to  furrow  our  streets  with  torrents  (as  we  have  read  lately) 
issuing  from  the  remolten  images  of  gods  and  heroes,  have 
however  so  far  respected  the  mother  of  Civilization  and  of 
Law,  as  never  to  permit  the  cruel  mockery,  of  erecting  Bar- 
barism and  Royalty  on  their  vacant  bases. 

PANETIUS. 

Our  ancient  institutions  in  part  exist :  we  lost  the  rest 
when  we  lost  the  simplicity  of  our  forefathers.  Let  it  be  our 
glory  that  we  have  resisted  the  most  populous  and  wealthy 
nations,  and  that,  having  been  conquered,  we  have  been  con- 
quered by  the  most  virtuous  ;  that  every  one  of  our  cities  hath 
produced  a  greater  number  of  illustrious  men  than  all  the 
remainder  of  the  earth  around  us  ;  that  no  man  can  anywhere 
enter  his  hall  or  portico,  and  see  the  countenances  of  his  an- 
centors  from  their  marble  columels,  without  a  commemorative 
and  grateful  sense  of  obligation  to  us;  that  neither  his  solemn 
feasts  nor  his  cultivated  fields  are  silent  on  it ;  that  not  the 
lamp  which  shews  him  the  glad  faces  of  his  children,  and 
prolongs  his  studies,  and  watches  by  his  rest ;  that  not  the 
ceremonies  whereby  he  hopes  to  avert  the  vengeance  of  the 
godh,  nor  the  tenderer  ones  whcron  arc  founded  the  affinities 


86 


Imaginary  Ctrtwersation. 


of  domestic  lifcs  nor  finally  lliose  which  lead  toward  another, 
woitld  have  existed  in  his  country,  if  Greece  had  not  conveyed 
them.  Betliink  thee,  Scipiu,  how  little  hath  been  done  by 
any  other  nation,  to  pnmiote  the  moral  dignity  or  enlarge  the 
social  pleasures  of  the  human  race.  What  parties  ever  met, 
in  their  most  populous  cities,  for  the  enjoyment  of  liberal  and 
speculative  conversation  ?  What  Alcibiades,  elated  wiih  war 
and  glory,  turned  his  youthful  mind  from  general  admiration 
and  from  the  cheers  and  caresses  of  coeval  friends,  to  strengthea 
and  purify  it  under  the  cold  reproofs  of  the  aged  ?  Wliat 
Aspasia  led  Philosophy  to  smile  on  Love,  or  taught  Love  to 
reverence  Fliitusophy  't  These,  as  thou  knowest,  are  not  the 
safest  guides  for  either  sex  to  follow ;  yet  in  these  were  united 
the  gravity  and  the  graces  of  wisdom,  never  seen,  never  ima- 
gined, out  of  Athens. 

I  would  not  offend  thee  by  comparing  the  genius  of  the 
Uomau  peopk-  witli  ours:  the  offence  is  removable,  and 
in  part  removed  ab'cady,  by  thy  hand.  The  little  of  sound 
learning,  the  little  of  pure  wit,  that  hath  appeared  in  Home 
from  her  foundation,  hath  been  concentrated  under  thy  roof: 
one  tile  would  cover  it.  Have  we  not  walked  together,  O 
Scipio,  by  starlight,  on  the  shores  of  Surrentum  and  Baise, 
of  Ischia  and  Caprea,  and  hath  it  not  occurred  to  thee 
that  the  heavens  themselves,  both  what  we  see  of  them  and 
what  lietli  above  our  vision,  are  peopled  with  our  heroes 
and  hei-oines?  The  ocean,  that  roars  so  heavily  in  the  oars 
of  other  men,  hath  for  us  its  tuneful  shells,  its  placid  nymphs, 
and  its  beneficent  ruler.  The  trees  of  the  forest,  the  flowers, 
the  pLantfi,  are  passed  indiscriminately  elsewhere :  they  waken 
and  warm  our  affections ;  they  mingle  with  the  objects  of  our 
worship;  they  breathe  the  spirit  of  our  ancestors;  they  lived 
in  our  form ;  they  spoke  in  our  language ;  they  suffered  as  our 
daughters  may  suflTer ;  the  deities  revisit  them  with  pity ;  and 
some  (we  think)  dwell  among  them. 


Poetry  !    i«)elry  ! 


SCIPIO. 


PAXETIU8. 


Yes;   I  own  it.     The  spirit  of  Greece,  passing  thro  and 
nsccndinp  above  the  world,  hath  w>  animated  universal  nature, 


Imaginary  Conversation.  37 

that  the  very  rocks  and  woods,  the  very  torrents  and  wilds 
burst  forth  with  it .  .  and  it  falls,  Emilianus !  even  from  me. 

SCIPIO. 

It  is  from  Greece  I  have  received  my  friends,  Panetius 
and  Polybius. 

PANETIUS. 

Say  more,  Emilianus!  You  have  indeed  said  it  here 
already ;  but  say  it  again  at  Rome :  it  is  Greece  who  taught 
the  Romans  all  beyond  the  rudiments  of  war:  it  is  Greece 
who  placed  in  your  hand  the  sword  that  conquered  Carthage. 

W.  S.  L. 


Dji  ARNOLD  ON  THE  SPARTAN  CONSTITUTION. 


These  are  few  subjects  connected  with  the  history  and 
antiquities  of  Greece  on  which  the  researches  of  modem 
scholars  have  thrown  a  greater  light,  tlian  on  the  structure  of 
the  Lacedsemonian  constitution.  The  learned  compilations 
of  Cragius  and  Meiirsius  were  little  more  than  compilations ; 
and  although  these  laborious  writers  left  only  scanty  glean- 
ings of  information  to  be  collected  by  th^ir  successors,  yet 
they  were  unable  to  arrange  into  an  uniform  whole,  and 
to  present  in  a  succinct  and  intelligible  form,  the  mate- 
rials which  their  diligence  had  raked  together.  It  was 
reserved  for  the  acutcness  and  learning  of  Mi'iUer,  aided 
by  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  political  relatione  of  the 
ancient  Greek  and  Italian  states,  to  read  in  the  traditions 
and  accounts  of  the  Spartan  government  its  true  form  and 
condition;  and  even  if  there  are  some  places  in  which  hi* 
enquiries  may  be  amended  or  enlarged,  and  if  his  judgement 
is  sometimes  warped  by  his  pretlilection  for  the  dominant 
Spartans,  yet  his  discussion  has  left  little  to  be  done  by 
succeeding  writers. 

Assisted  by  the  researches  of  Midler,  and  other  late 
writers  on  the  same  subject,  Ur  Arnold  has  written  a  disser- 
tation un  the  history  and  nature  of  the  S|>artan  constitution, 
which  he  has  ap[>eiided  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Thucy- 
dides.  The  account  in  Thuc.  i.  87.  of  the  popular  assembly 
of  Sparta  induced  him  to  offer  an  explanation  of  the  seeming 
paradox  of  a  dcniocratical  assembly  in  an  aristocrntical  state. 
In  the  development  of  his  reasons  he  has  imdoubtedly  de- 
scribed with  perfect  accuracy  and  great  ability  the  cliarac- 
teristic  features  of  ihc  Lacedirmonian  state:  nevertheless  as 
it  appears   (o  me  that  hi:*  solution  of  the  difHcuUy  proposed 


Dr  Jrnold  ou  the  Spartan  Const ifution. 


39 


1)_V  Him  procctHls  uii  u  grouiul  fundainen tally  wrung,  and  as 
there  are  stmie  points  in  lu^s  liistorical  stateniunls  winch  M^eni 
to  he  inaccurate  either  in  suhstance  or  expression,  I  shall 
take  the  liherty  of  following  him  through  the  chief  part  of 
his  discussion,  and  attempt  to  suggest  an  explanation  free 
from  the  objections  to  which  his  is  liable. 

After  giving  the  well-known  account  of  the  Doric  con- 
quest of  I>aconia,  Dr  Arnold  adopts  the  statement  of  Ephorus, 
that  the  Acheeatis  were  nut  at  first  reduced  to  complete  sub- 
jection. "  The  conquered  people,  althougli  dispossessed  of  a 
considerable  portion  of  their  lands,  and  although  their  throne 
iras  filled  by  strangers,  were  still  in  law  equal  to  tlie  con- 
querors, and  not  only  enjoyed  the  private  rights  of  citizen- 
ship, such  as  the  right  of  intermarriage  with  the  Dorians, 
but  were  also  eligible  to  all  offices  of  state  except  the  crown.*" 
(p.  C*ir).  This  account  of  Ephorus,  which  had  been  rejected 
by  Miiller,  Dr  Arnold  follows  also  in  another  place,  where 
he  attempts  to  answer  the  objections  made  to  it :  and  in  order 
to  ascertain  how  far  lie  has  been  successful  in  reestablish- 
ing the  credit  of  Kphorus,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine 
the  matter  in  detail. 

£phorus  (ap.  Strab.  viii.  p.  364.)  says  that  Eurysthenes 
and  Prodes,  the  Heraclida*,  who  conquered  Lacouia,  divided 
it  into  nix  parts,  and  fortified  the  country :  that  tliey  gave 
the  province  which  contained  Amyclie  as  a  reward  to  the 
person  who  betrayctl  the  country  into  their  hamls,  and  per- 
suaded the  former  governor  to  go  away  with  the  Achfcans. 
Miiller  objects  to  these  statements  of  Kphorus  chiefly  for  the 
fallowing  reasons.     (Dorians,  b.  i.  c.  5.  ^  11 — 14.) 

-  1.  It  appears  that  according  to  the  national  tradition  of 
Sparta,  Eurysthenes  and  Procles  were  not  the  conquerors 
or  founders  of  Sparta,  but  Aristodemus.  (Herod,  vi.  52.) 
This  tradition  has  been  followed  by  Xcnophon,  who  says  that 
**  the  house  of  Agesilaus  appeared  to  have  the  very  doors 
which  had  been  put  up  by  Aristodemus.**  Whence  Plutarch 
Agesil.  ig.  It  was  also  adopted  by  Alcteus,  as  Niebuhr  has 
remarked,  (vol.  i.  n.  1007.)  ws  yap  ^tj  ttotc  tpatriv  ' AptaTo^- 
t^ov  I  e'l'  'XirapTqi  \oyov  ovk  aTraXatxvoi'  enreiif.  Consequently, 
Eurysthenes  and  Procles  cannot  have  been  reported  in  the 
national  tradition  of  Sparta  to  have  been  the  conquerors  of 


40 


Dr  Amtild  ott  the 


Laconia  (oi  KaTa<Ty6*^€^  Ttfv  AaKwvtKf}v)t  nor  to  have  dividetl 
the  Lacoiiian  territory  into  provinces,  if  that  division  took 
phicc  at  or  immedifttply  after  the  conquest^  which  seems  to 
be  the  meaning  of  Ephorua.  Or,  if  it  be  objected  that  the 
division  was  not  made  at  the  conquest,  but  soon  after,  it  may 
be  answered  that  the  interval  must  have  been  considerable, 
as  Thcras  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  story  of  the  Minytc  to 
have  been  guardian  of  the  twins,  when  children,  and  conse- 
quently their  minority  must  have  been  of  some  duration.  The 
fact  of  this  story  of  the  Minyic  being  reco^^nised  both  by  the 
Spartan  and  Therocan  tradition  is  urged  by  Dr  Arnold  him- 
self to  corroborate  another  circumstance  mentioned  in  it 
(p.  &H.  n.)  ;  he  cannot  therefore  refuse  to  admit  the  minority 
of  Eurysthencs  and  Procles,  and  the  guardianship  of  Theras. 
To  another  possible  objection  that  Theras  may  have  made 
the  division,  which  is  attributed  to  Eurysthencs  an<l  I'rocles, 
because  it  took  place  in  their  reign ;  it  is  an  obvious  answer 
that  the  acts  of  Lycurgus  when  guardian  of  Charilaus  are 
never  attributed  to  the  latter. 

Secondly,  it  appears  tliat  these  six  pro^nnces  contained 
towns  which  were  not  reduced  by  the  Spartons  till  many 
generations  after  the  invasion,  and  which  remained  not  as 
subjects  or  tributaries,  b\it  in  a  state  of  absolute  independence- 
Among  these  are  some  particularly  mentioned  by  Ephorus  as 
belonging  to  the  Spartans  and  strengthening  their  power: 
such  as  Aegys,  which  was  not  taken  till  the  time  of  Arehe- 
laus  and  Charilaus,  more  than  two  centuries,  Fharis  and 
Geronthrse  by  Teleclus,  more  than  two  centuries  and  a  half 
after  the  invasion.  (Pausan.  iii.  2.  5,  fi).  "  But  the  jxriod 
(says  Dr.  Arnold)  to  which  Mliller  alludes  is  not  that  of 
their  political  subjection,  but  of  their  destruction,  when  the 
old  inhabitants  were  extirpated,  and  the  town  peopled  by 
Dorians.  The  expressions  in  Pausanias  are  e^^iXov,  ijc^pa- 
trctShavTo-'^  p.  648.  But  from  his  expressions  TroXefiip  Kpa- 
TtjaavTtVj  evoirrtuv  cti  Avnjdti;,  ana  vTroTr-revtratn-e^  my  oi 
AiyvTat  <Ppovowri  to  'Apxa^vj  it  it  probable  that  he  under- 
stood the  Achieans  of  these  towns  to  have  been  hitherto 
independant.  Dr  Arnold  probably  infers  from  the  following 
passage  of  Paus.  iii.  32.  6,  that  these  towns  received  a  Doric 
population.      It  seems  however  very  improbable  that  any  of 


Spartan  ConHUation. 


41 


the  towns  of  the  Perioeci  were  peopled  by  Dorians ;  uor  does 
such  a  supposition  agree  with  Dr  Aruold'a  general  view  of 
the  Doric  conquest  of  Laconia.  The  Spartans  out  of  the 
chief  city,  mentioned  by  Xenophon  in  his  account  of  Cina- 
doll's  conspiracy,  were  resident  not  in  the  country  towns, 
but  on  their  own  estates  in  the  district  of  the  eiti^enfl,  the 
X^ifM  iroKiTtm].    (Hell.  itr.  S.  5). 

3.  Among  these  towns  was  Amyclie,  which  though  not 
thre«  miles  distant  from  Sparta,  is  known  to  have  held  out 
till  the  reign  of  Teleclus,  S7H  years  after  the  invasion,  and  to 
have  been  in  a  state  of  constant  hostility  to  Sparta.  So  fre- 
quent indeed  were  the  alarms  of  an  attack,  that  the  Amycleans 
are  reported  to  have  made  a  law  that  no  one  should  give 
warning  of  the  enemy's  approach  :  and  it  was  so  current  a 
tradition  in  antiquity  that  the  city  was  taken  by  surprise  in 
consequence  of  this  regulation,  as  to  be  made  a  niatltT  of 
allusion  by  an  early  lloman  satirist.  It  dtx-s  not  therefore 
appear  that  Amyclse  was  soon  after  the  invasion  in  such  a 
state  of  subjection  that  it  could  be  given  as  a  reward  to  a 
friend,  in  the  same  way  that  Bonaparte  gave  kingdoms  to 
his  relations  and  generals:  and  its  destruction  mentioned  by 
Pausanias  may  naturally  have  been  provoked  by  so  long  and 
determined  a  resistance- 
There  is  however  an  explanation  (such  as  it  is)  which 
Dr  Arnold  might  allege.  Conou  (Narr.  3fi)  states  that  Phi- 
lonouius  tl\e  Spartan^  who  bad  betrayed  Laccdicmon  to  the 
Dorians,  received  Amycl^  as  the  reward  of  his  treachery, 
and  peopled  it  with  settlers  from  Lcmnos  and  Imbros 
(i.  <-  Minya).  In  the  third  generation  these  colonists  re- 
belled against  the  Dorians,  were  driven  out  of  Amyclfc,  and 
went,  accompanied  by  some  Spartans  and  headed  by  Pollis 
and  Dclphus,  to  Crete.  This  statement  of  a  writer  of  low 
authority  is  rendered  more  suspicious;   l.  Because  Philonomus ' 


'  ArtUtbhop  ^Vlutely  hu  juitly  hdicul«d  Uu»e  ucpitcftl  hiftroriBiu,  who  g«  rid 
of  tmI  pcnoM  bjr  an  cijrmoloffic*!  re«olution  of  their  naniM,  when  he  urge*  «  •  p»- 
habk  made  of  ■ccountuiR  for  the  r»hlH  ttf  DuonapaneS  existence,  the  tufwestion  that 
io  bo  he  i«  a  mere  rcpresMitutre  o(  a  Ittrfft  pari  {buoiu  pKte)  of  ih*  French  nation. 
Nrrertiicleu  in  this  instance  the  iwme  Phiianomua  (u  Mullci  hw  remarked)  it  vaj 
•uapiooua,  and  uemit  aa  if  it  alluded  to  the  fondncM   of  thii  traitor  for  the  vifttn 

Vol.  a.  No.  4.  F 


« 


Dr  A  mold  tm  the 


is  called  a  Spftitan,  white  Ephorus  calls  him  an  Achfleau^ 
which  he  must  hove  been  in  order  to  betray  the  Achieana ; 
unless  indeed  Conon  by  Spartan  meant  only  an  inhabit- 
ant of  Sparta,  whether  Achaean  or  Dorian.  (Sec  Nicol. 
Damasc.  p.  445  ed.  Vales.).  S.  Because  Pausanias  makes 
no  mention  of  this  previous  subjection  of  the  Amycleans. 
S.  Because,  allowing  the  longest  time  for  a  generation^ 
it  is  impossible  to  make  S7H  years  out  of  three  generations* 
even  if  the  third  is  taken  complete;  and  Conon  expressly 
says  **  in  the  third  generation." 

4.  Kphorus  moreover  states  that  Eurysthenes  and 
Procles  **  built  towns  in  the  country,'*  or  •*  fortified  the 
country"  {iroKicai  t^v  )^W|»u»'),  which  it  is  extremely  impro- 
bable that  the  chiefs  of  a  conquering  aristocracy  sliuuld  do, 
even  on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  of  Lacunia  was  re- 
duced at  the  first  invasion.  Such  a  measure  would  have 
had  the  effect  of  strengthening  their  subjects,  who  must 
always  have  been  considered  as  the  enemies  uf  the  Spartan 
nobles. 

5.  EphoruR  further  states  ihut  Procles  and  Euryftthenea 
sent  kings  to  the  diiferent  provinces,  witli  permission  to  re- 
ceive any  strangers  who  were  willing  to  be  partakers  in  the 
rights  of  citizenship  {oeyecrBai  (TVi'o'tKOW  tov^  jiovKofievovv 
TW¥  feMttVi  p>  S64>)t  on  account  of  the  depopulation  of  the 
country.  And  in  another  place  he  says  that  "  Eurysthenes 
and  Procles  received  foreigners  (i.  c.  at  Sparta),  and  governed 
by  their  means.""    (p.  3G6). 

It  aeems  certain  from  the  traditions  respecting  the  early 
kings  of  Sparta,  that,  before  the  Achteon  period,  Laconia  was 
inhabited  by  a  Leiegian  race.  (See  Meursius  Aeg.  Lac. 
c.  I.  2).  These  Leieges  appear  afterwards  to  have  been  a 
class  of  subjects  or  slaves  under  the  Achn^ans.  Now  when 
the  Achscans  were  dislodged,  the  country  was  not  dispeopled, 
so  as  to  require  these  imaginary  kings  of  Ephorus  lo  admit 
foreigners  to  the  rights  of  citizenship:  nor  is  there  any 
account  of  other  settlers  in  Laconia  besides  the  Dorians  at 
this  time.  If  moreover  Eurysthenes  and  Procles  reigned  aa 
tyrants  over  the  Dorians  by  the  assistance  of  foreigners, 
nothing  would  be  more  impolitic  than  to  strengthen  the  country  * 
with  fortresses,   a   measure   never  adopted  by  the  arbitrary 


Spartan  CormtUuHtm. 


43 


princes  of  Greece'.  It  is  also  highly  improbable  Chat  the 
chiefs  of  a  conquering  aristocracy  lihould  have  succeeded  so 
boon  in  obtaining  a  despotic  power  over  those  by  whose 
efforts  tlie  country  had  just  been  subdued.  The  account  of 
Ephorus  seems  to  l>e  no  further  true,  thau  that  in  early 
times  the  Spartans,  by  reason  either  of  their  small  numbers, 
or  their  unsettled  dominion,  were  more  liberal  in  admitting 
strangers  to  the  rights  of  citizenship,  a  tradition  alluded  to 
by  Aristotle^ ;  and  that  the  kings  had  at  one  time  arrogated 
a  greater  power  than  belonged  to  their  successors  after  the 
Lycurgcan  legislation' ;  but  the  other  circumstances  of  his 
narrative  bear  strung  marks  of  the  rationali^ting  and  mo- 
dernizing spirit  which  pervades  all  his  accounts  of  early 
times. 

.After  making  the  statement  concerning  PhLl(>nomu8''s  re- 
ward, Ephorus  pn)cccds  to  say  that  the  Pcrioeci  were  obedient 
indeed  to  the  Spartan.^  but  nevertheless  enjoyed  un  equality  of 
rights,  sharing  both  in  the  rights  of  citizenship  and  in  public 
offices:  but  that  Agis  the  son  of  Eurysthencs  took  away  their 
equality,  and  made  thorn  tributary  to  Sparta:  that  the  in- 
habitants of  HcloH  resisted  and  were  made  slaves,  whence 
arose  the  class  of  (lelots. 

Now  in  the  first  place  it  is'  difficult  to  conceive  how  the 
Periccci  could  have  been  obedient  to  the  S})artans,  or  at  least 
how  the  Spartans  could  have  ensured  their  obedience,  if  they 
had  posse&sctt  all  the  rights  and  advantages  of  Spartan  citizen^ 


miwif  oiMrtpoa.  axXd  tiiWov  Urxitpol  rnot  vXriovT.    AriHot.  Pol.  vii.  It. 

*  Acyvvffi  i'  ««t  i-wl  ftiv  twk  xporVptu*  ^k^iX^hv  ftrrtiUtMav  t^t  «-aXiTt«af .  PoL 
It.  9.  RflrodacuK  however  nyi  thu  in  eviy  liinn  ihey  woe  ^tl^iaiv  d-wpionucrw, 
1.66. 

*  Herodotus  i.  RA.  and  Thucydldn  i.  18.  merely  state  itiat  hcfon  lijrcurgiis  the 
SpMtuii  vera  ill  governH  and  tnm  by  Mditiofift:  hut  when  Thucydidea  utya  that 
Spaxta  liti  ^-rvfiafiftvrpt  rjf.  he  appeatit  only  lo  refer  to  the  timrs  afirr  Lycurgut. 
Amurtle  PoL  f.  12.  cim  the  tvign  of  ('liarilau*  a>  an  c\aniple  of  a  chaiiKe  from 
•rvfMn/h  to  aiutocncy.  Comp,  Houdid.  Pool.  Pol.  2.  ^al  -raw  \dpi\\or  Tupafwiiem^ 
■joxoi^o  HrrScTiiai  (I.ycurf[UR>)  The  pamngc  of  luncratai  dc  Pace  p.  I/H.  C.  which 
appean  (o  cooiiadici  Paiiath.  p.  'J7(i.  A.  is  tuitinfariotily  explained  by  Mr  Clinion. 
K.  H.  Intnd.  p-  r.  n.  t.  Miiller,  Por.  Vol.  ti.  y.  12.  n.  h.  oiii.imeT|irei»  .Strabo 
VIII.  p.  385.  oi  ii  MIT  BO  x*"*^**  f^v    .Au<hbi'i«»|V  msI   akt'  lipxo*  t*"*  itfxpp^i'oit:  by 

Teforing  these  words  to  iniemoi  quiet:  8txabo  meam  that  at  finl  'hey  made  no 
/aetipn  eofiqiiesis,  and  Aid  not  aim  at  rstrmai  aKcndmr*. 


44 


Dt  Arnold  oil  the 


ship.     The   distinrlum  between  Spartans  and  Periceci  would 
have  been  a  distinction  without  a  difference,  a  mere  variety 
of  name,  if  a  Perirecus  cnnld  be  elected  to  the  chief  magis- 
tracie»    and    vote    in    the    mipremc    legislative    nsaeinbly    of 
the  state.     Nor   is  it  more  probable   of  early  than  of  later 
limes  that  the  inhabitants  of  remote  towns  should  have  be- 
longed to  the  Spartan  community,  and  been  admitted  to  the 
Spartan  ecclefda.     (See  Miiller,  b.   hi.  c.  2  ^  2).     Again,  it 
must  be    allowed    that    the    Dorians    formed    an   aristocratic 
order  from  their  very  first  settlement  in  ^>parta,  and  that  their 
polity  was   always  founde<l   on    subject  and   inferior   classes. 
Xow  Ephorus  SOYS  that  the  Periceci  were  nearly  their  equals, 
and  were   not   tributary,   and  that   the  order  of  Helots   was 
not  instituted  by  the  disfranclii semen t  of  some  of  the  Periceci 
rill  the  first  generation  after  the  conquest.     Who  then   were 
the  slaves  in  the  reigns  nf  Eurysthenes  and  Procles?     Who 
in  those  early   times   enabled   the    Spartans  to  enjoy  an   ex- 
emption from  trade  and   agriculture,  by   tilting  the  lands  of 
which  the  Acha?an   Periceci  had  just  been   dispossessed  ?     It 
is  so  hard   to  believe   that  a  conquering  aristocracy   should 
have   willingly    admitted    the    natives    to    such   privileges   as 
Ephorus  describes,  or  that,  if  they  were  admitted,  as  io  Argos 
just    before   the    Persian    war,    their   adniit»sion    shoidd    have 
been  followed  by  no  dangerous  consequences  to  the  Spartans, 
that  it  seems  much  safer  to  reject  the  statements  of  Ephorus, 
so  far  as  to  suppose  that  the  Acha?ans  never  were  taovo^ot 
with  the  Spartans,  nor  enjoyed  the  rights  of  Spartan  citizen- 
ship,  that  is,  that  they  were  not,  like  the  Aegid«,  admitted 
into  the  tribes*.     The  mistake  of  Ephorus  (if  mistake  it  be) 
perhaps  arose  from  the  Periceci  being  above  the  condition  of 
bondsmen,  and  their  being  eligible  to  some  petty  municipal 


'  Ephonm  ap.  Strsb.  viii.  p.  3fll.  (cmenilcd  by  MijUer  Vol.  i.  p.  III.)  ntauw  vidt 
M]u&l  Impnibiibility  than  Crwphmites  hail  oriBirnlty  intended  to  muke  all  the  Mna»- 
nlaiu  equal  with  the  Doiiant,  but  wbk  f>rcvcnicil  by  the  Dorittni  fnnn  ful&llinjf  hi* 
pfoject.  Pauiiuiias  it.  ,1.  fi — 8.  (.•onfimis  Kphtirua  as  to  the  popular  rale  of  <'re»- 
phfinie«,  but  hf  uy!i  that  the  IMcncniartt  agreed  wjthotit  a  battle  to  divide  their  laods 
with  the  Dt'riiini,  iiur  does  he  ineminn  equal  rijjhts.  Let  any  body  consider  the  legal 
rdatloos  introduced  by  lh«  Norman  ron<|ue«l  of  England,  by  the  Lombard  canqueat 
•r  Italy,  by  the  Franks..  Buijpjndians  &e.  in  tVance,  of  which  we  have  contempoiary 
aecnunis,  .ind  then  lei  him  judge  how  far  three  iitaicnicntx  of  Ephof  un  atr  likely  to  hare 
ftny  truth. 


spartan  Conatitutuui. 


45 


(tttici^A  in  their  oun  (owns:  tor  though  they  were  under  the 
geuerol  superintendence  of  Spartan  governors  or  magis- 
trates (Thuc.  IV.  &H.  Xcn.  HcU.  iii.  3.  t)),  the  detailed 
inanBgcment  of  their  own  internal  oifairs  was  probably  left 
tu  them.  Because  the  Roman  Plcbs  were  above  the  con* 
dition  of  the  Clients,  and  had  some  officers  who  adminia- 
lered  iIk'  ofTairs  of  ttu'ir  own  body,  does  it  follow  that 
they  stood  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Patricians,  and  en- 
joyeil  the  full  rights  of  Roman  citizenship?  It  is  moreover 
highly  prolmble  that  tlie  Helots  of  tlie  Spartans  were  foruied 
partly  of  a  j>lave  population  which  bad  tilled  the  lands  of 
the  Achffians,  and  merely  changed  masters,  partly  of  a 
portion  of  these  same  Achu-ans,  who  had  resisted  the  Spar- 
laoft,  and  who,  from  being  taken  with  arms  in  their  hands, 
were  colled  etXwrei  or  "pritioners,"  which  word  cannot  con- 
usteiitly  with  the  rules  of  the  Greek  language  be  derived 
from   the  town  ''EXos•^ 

Dr  Arnold  states  in  p.  6i3  that  he  bus  followed  Isocrates 
Panatb.  p.  370.  in  '^  his  view  of  the  relative  situation  of  the 
Dorians  and  the  Achaian  vfpiotKoi.^"  Now  as  this  account 
of  laocrales  is  completely  incun^ustent  with  that  of  KphoruB, 
Ur  Arnold  must,  according  to  the  law-phrase,  be  put  to  his 
election,  and  follow  cither  the  one  or  the  other,  and  not  take 
from  both  whatever  suits  his  purpose.  Isocrates  states  that 
tbc  most  accurate  writers  uu  early  Spartan  history  (oi  TaKcivtuv 
aKpt^ouvrt\  m-  owccVav  aXXot/y  TtDv  LAXi/'foti')  say  that  the 
Dorians  at  first  disagreed  among  themselves;  and  dis> 
union,  it  is  true,  would  naturally  cause  weakness  among  the 


•  H«e  MuHcT  b.  i.  ch.  4.  ti  7-  b.  in.  rb.  3.  §  I.  Steph.  Bfi.  in'RX««...Al 
w«Xi^mt  EIX«rri« — Xryo^m*  ^  EiX-Tm  kh)  'K\*iQiKitl  'EX»«toi.  ««1  •(  X^f  BI*«»- 
T(4«.  The  regular  Kenlilc  tuune  fram  'KXof  would  be  '£X*T<m,  as  'Apylo^  ftoBi 
'hpy*^  juul  thix  ii  ii!icd  bj  >tr»bo  viii.  p.  KR^  (comp.  MuIIct  VoL  i.  p.  !t92.  n.  x.) 
The  district  nf  Helm  is  called  n  'EKla  in  Poljrb.  v.  \9.  J.  Tot  which  we  khould  read 
n'K\«)(i.  Thflopompuii  in  Athcn.  p.  27:2.  A.  um»  '  RXra-rfis.  Pkumd.  in.  2.  7*  odl* 
the  iahaltitMiu  of  llrloc  KlAwrcv,  but  probably  on  account  of  the  historical  cxplana- 
ticn  of  the  nunc  a(  the  hI&vcv  and  with  no  better  authority  than  Htcphsmm  had  for 
■ttitiif  that  the  district  of  rielM  ww  called  BiXwTrla.  BlXiaTnt  is  *  bsrbaroua  fonin, 
•Md)  probably  itever  existed  m  a  name  eitlicr  of  ibc  ulaTCs  or  the  Hcliatu,  and  wOM 
Am  the  ooffTupCioiu  of  the  text  of  Herodotus  by  the  introduceni  of  suppoKcd  loiilsnu. 
AUiodMS  appeiia  Dot  to  have  known  (he  derivation  of  the  cTXvttv  fmm'K-XM,  for  he 
mf^  that  ihaiie  Lrfwedmnoniins  who  did  not  tike  psrl  in  the  MtHCnian  war,  wen 
made  sUvcVf  uid  railed  helots,  Strsb.  vi.  p.  278. 


46 


Dr  Arnold  on  tht^ 


conquerors^  and  therefore  strength  among  the  conquered. 
But  he  goes  on  to  nay  that  they  reduced  the  Fericcci  to  the 
abject  state  in  which  he  describe»  them,  without  any  mention 
of  an  intervening  period  of  comparative  liberty  and  equality': 
so  that  his  account  i.s  completely  irreconcilable  with  that  of 
Ephorus  adopted  by   Or  Arnold. 

In  the  foregoing  remai-ks  I  have  argued  on  the  suppoidtion 
of  Miiller,  adopted  by  Dr  Arnold,  that  the  names  and  chro- 
nology of  the  Spartan  kings  from  the  Doric  conquest  are 
historical.  Although  Miiller  has  been  censured  by  Dr  Arnold 
aa  too  much  inclined  to  scepticism,  in  this  point  it  appears 
to  me  that  he  is  more  justly  cliargeable  with  too  great  cre- 
dulity. For  there  is  little  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
Spartans  possessed  an  earlier  regular  history  than  any 
other  state  of  Greece,  when  we  consider,  1.  The  fact 
noticed  by  Mr  Clinton,  F.  H.  Part  ii.  p.  206,  that  the 
average  length  of  the  reigns  before  the  begiiming  of  au- 
thentic history  considerably  exceeds  the  average  length  of 
those  after  that  epoch.  2.  That  the  1*  first  kingii  of  both 
houses  are  represented  as  succeeding  in  the  direct  tine  from 
father  to  son,  or  from  grandfather  to  grandson,  without 
a  single  instance  of  female  or  collateral  succes-sion :  a  cir- 
cumstance, wliicb,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  cannot  be  paral- 
leled by  auy  single  line  of  hereditary  princes  and  which 
moreover  ceases  in  Sparta  at  the  commencement  of  con- 
temporary history;  and  how  much  is  the  improbability 
increased  when  the  line  is  double!  3.  Plutarch  Lye.  I.  says 
that  Eratosthenes  and  Apollodorus  calculated  the  date  of 
Lycurgus  by  tfie  successions  of  the  Spartan  kings,  i.  e.  by 
assuming  a  certain  average  number  of  years  for  every  reign: 
which  they  would  hardly  have  done,  if  there  had  been  on 
accredited  chronology  of  those  reigns  founded  on  contcmpf>- 
rary  registers.  Duttmann  h&n  the  following  remarks  on  this 
subject:  *' The  celebrated  patronymic  family-names  are  com- 
monly derived  from  an  ancestor  belonging  to  the  transitioii- 
{leriod  between  fable  and  history,  to  the  interval  between  the 


'  "Wnfia  fffiivt  flic  sfrrnit   timwnfi I'tiw  tcnTutrriiiMH  nal  ftifiotkpKTSar  td4«i^i|i>,  mav 
**iif<rn»0iii  |>.  !I7(L  t.  TWO  ytip  nfiroi  fti»  i^  Jpy(^%  ttiPti  vrwcCirrnoc  &c<  p.  371  B. 


Spattau  ConaiUutiofi. 


♦7 


I 
I 


I 


expedition  of  the  Heraclida*  and  Pisistratus.  Even  the  most 
celebrated  of  all,  the  two  houses  at  Sparta,  were  n<it  called 
after  the  two  renowned  epic  namt^  of  tlie  brntliers  Eurys- 
thenes  and  ProcIe»,  but  their  common  appellation  was  Agiadn 
and  Kury}x>ntids,  from  two  princes  who  lived  in  the  dimness 
of  the  earliest  history,  the  son  and  grandson  of  Eurysthencs 
and  Procles.  *  Eurypon,  it  is  said  (Pausanian  iuforins  us, 
lit.  1,  I.),  reached  such  a  height  of  glory,  that  tliis  house 
took  its  uante  from  him,  whicli  before  his  time  hud  been 
called  Proclid)).''  The  historical  fact  contained  in  this  state- 
ment an)uunts  only  to  thin:  that  the  two  Heraclide,  and, 
if  we  will,  kindred,  royal  houses  of  Sparta  were  always  called 
Agiads  aiid  Kurypontids ;  that  is  to  say^  as  far  back  as  the 
progenitors  Agis  and  Eurypon,  to  whose  time  the  true  his- 
torical tradition  ascends.  Every  thing  beyond  them  belongs 
to  the  province  nf  fabulous  legends  and  epic  poetry,  and  is 
the  creature  of  that  all-pervading  spirit  of  historical  fiction 
which  derived  the  two  ruling  houses  from  two  brothers,  de- 
scendants of  Hercules  in  the  sixth  degree/'  Mythol.  Vol.  ii. 
p.  266.  The  same  method  of  explaining  the  double  names 
of  the  two  royal  houses  is  also  adopted  by  Niebuhr,  when, 
ftpeaking  of  the  number  of  the  Spartan  gerusia,  he  say:^  that 
"  thirty  houses  were  represented,  the  Agiads  and  Kury- 
pontids by  the  kings:  these  names,  wben  the  descent  of  the 
two  houses  from  twins  had  become  an  article  of  popular 
belief,  were  derived  from  certain  alleged  descendants  of  those 
mythical  brothers.*"  Hist,  of  Ilome,  Vol.  i.  p.  333.  Here 
Niebuhr  does  not,  like  Buttmann,  make  history  ascend  to 
Eurypon  and  Agis,  though  both  writers  agree  in  assigning 
the  sons  of  Aristodemiis  to  mythology ;  and  indeed  it  is 
difficult  to  find  sufficient  testimony  to  accredit  the  received 
accounts  of  the  early  Spartan  kihgs,  liable  as  they  are  to 
•uch  numerous  and  weighty  objections.  "  Ce  n'est  pas  (I 
may  «ay  with  Adrien  de  Valois)  que  je  sois  incredule:  mais 
en  fut  d'histoirc  je  veux  quelquc  bonne  autoritf^,  autrement 
je  n'y  ajoute  point  de  foi."  (Valesiana,  p.  SSjj).  Neverthe- 
lew  the  names  of  the  Spartan,  as  of  the  Roman  kings,  are 
doubtless  derived  from  populai*  tradition,  and  arc  not,  like 
the  lifit^  of  the  Egyptian  kings  in  Herodotus,  and  of  the 
Argivc  and  Sicyonian  kings  in   Eusebius,   mere  fabrications 


48 


Dt  Arnold  f»t  the 


of  learneti  priests  and  uliroiiologcrs.  Nor  is  it  to  be  denied 
that  the  descent  of  the  two  royal  families  from  twins  furnishes 
the  most  prohabte  explanation  of  tlie  singular  fact  of  two 
hereditary  kin|^.  The  consuls  of  Home  and  the  kings  or 
aufTetes  of  Carthage  afford  no  parallel,  as  they  were  not 
hereditary. 

Dr  Arnold  next  proceeds  to  describe  the  l^acedoimoninn 
form  of  government,  as  being  an  aristocracy  or  oligarchy 
rather  in  respect  of  its  subjects,  the  conquered  Achscans, 
than  of  its  citizens  the  conquering  Dorians ;  '*  although  even  in 
the  relations  of  the  conquering  people  among  themselves, 
the  constitution  was  far  less  popular  than  that  of  Athens,*" 
p.  (Uo.  On  the  relation  which  subsisted  between  the  Spar- 
tans and  the  Periccci,  the  remarks  of  Dr  Arnold  admit  neither 
of  abridgement  nor  improvement.  The  Spartans^  were  and 
continued  to  be  an  army  of  occupation  in  the  midst  of  a  con- 
quered country.  They  "  were  a  nation  of  nobles;  and  in  their 
feelings  as  well  as  their  rank  resembled  the  nobles  of  the 
middle  agt*s.  Relieved  from  nil  attention  to  agriculture  by 
the  services  uf  Lheir  helots  or  villains,  tanglit  to  regard  trade 
as  disgraceful,  and  literature  as  immanly;  passing  their  time 
in  manly  and  martial  exercises,  like  the  hunting  and  tourna- 
ments of  a  later  period ;  regarding  all  the  mmnbera  of  their 
ottm  body  as  substantially  equals  in  spite  of  subordinate 
differences,  and  all  who  were  not  of  their  own  hody  as  only 
born  to  render  them  obedience — the  nobles  of  Sparta  differed 
in  one  point  alone  from  those  of  modern  Europe,  in  their 
admirable  organization  and  discipline.  Their  institutions 
united  the  high  enthusiastic  spirit  of  chivalry  with  that  perfect 
self-command,  that  entire  obedienf!e  to  their  otBcers,  and  tho- 
roughly systematized  union  of  action,  in  which  the  chivalry 
of  modern  Europe  was  happily  deficient.  Had  the  nobles 
of  Burgundy  and  Austria  been  trained  in  the  school  of  Ly- 
curgus,  the  most  truly  glorious  victories  recorded  in  history 
would  never  have  been  won,  and  Morat  and  Hempach  would 
be  names  as  hateful  to  the  lovers  of  liberty  and  justice  as 
Ithome  and  Ira.^  p.  643,   i. 

That  the  Spartan  constitution  afforded  no  protection 
to  the  Perioeci  and  Helots,  and  that  in  this  sense  it  was  an 
oligarchy,  and  a  most  oppressive   oligarchy,    will  be  readily 


spartan  CoMtihttwn, 

Donceded  to  Dr  Arnold.  But  it  appears  to  me  that  he  has 
not  bud  sufficient  stress  on  its  oligarchical  character  in  res|)ect 
of  the  cUlzetis  alone,  and  that  he  has  committed  a  fundamental 
error  in  referring  the  expressions  of  the  ancients  on  the  form 
of  its  government  to  the  stnicture  of  its  entire  community, 
inclusive  of  the  subject  classes,  and  in  not  limiting  them  to 
the  internal  arrangement  of  its  body  politic.  In  order  to 
shew  the  grounds  of  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary  first 
to  examine  Dr  Arnold's  account  of  the  disposition  of  the 
tovereign  power  in  the  Lacedaemonian  state,  then  to  collect 
the  various  names  which  the  ancients  gave  to  its  constitution, 
and  to  explain  their  meaning  and  application. 

The  two  royal  Hcraclide  families  are  rightly  described 
by  Dr  Arnold  (after  Midler)  as  deriving  their  hereditary 
title  from  traditionary  feelings  of  religious  respect  handed 
down  from  an  early  period,  and  as  reigning  by  a  species 
of  divine  right  ascending  to  their  ancestors,  the  founders 
of  the  state^ :  the  tlonietttic  and  civil  jmwer  of  the  kings 
in  the  times  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge,  and  after 
the  legislation  of  Lycurgus,  was  however  so  incfuisiderablc 
as  not  to  form  an  important  branch  of  the  constitution ; 
nor  is  it  ever  noticed  as  influencing  the  form  of  government, 
except  by  the  speculative  politicians  in  treating  of  mixed  go- 
vern ments'^ 

Dr  Arnold  then  proceeds  to  describe  the  Ephoralty  as 
,  magistracy  contrived  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  body 
the  Spartan  noblifs  against  the  power  of  the  kings  and 
the  council  of  Elders:  and  to  the  existence  of  this  office  he 
allributes  the  stability  of  the  Spartan  constitution:  for 
wherea.<i  in  other  Doric  states  the  compact  (as  he  styles  it) 
between  the  Heraclide  princes  and  the  Dorian  people  was 
broken  either  by  one  or  the  other  piu-ty,  so  that  the  kings 


*  Thiwe  {wy*  Arittotle)  who  have  gmily  beocfiied  ihe  *tMXB  tuve  been  tnaile  kings, 
•omc  by  wTinjf  it.  othen  by  Iredn^  it,  from  s  foreign  yokt,  oihcn  kTliiatrrev  li  (c-njaa". 
fifirot  Xiifif*'.  irwtp  ol  Aajitiat/tovitov  ^atriXfic  tcai  MoxiMrwy  koJ  HaXomfv,  PoL 
r,  10.     n«(MeabcTc  p.  4). 

-  •  Tht  cbfumeunc*  of  (here  l>eing  /mm>  kings  does  not  prevent  l>r  Arnold  from 
flpuJtlng  ot  "■  the  hereditary  numarchif  of  the  Ileraclids,"  p.  ilU.  In  this  plireseology 
havever  be  U  cnuntenanced  by  MHnc  vriien  alluded  to  by  Arintotlc^  below  p.  A7. 
hy  PoJybttu  vi.  II.  6,  ?•  «bo  cklU  the  Romin  government  monarfhivai on  account  of 
the  two  consuls;  and  by  a  piHtgif  attributed  to  Archyta*,  below  p.  &&. 

Vol.  II.  No.  *.  G 


so 


Vf  Atuold  oil   the 


either  became  absolute  or  sank  into  insignificance,  in  Sparta 
the  balance  of  the  two  powers  was  trimmed  by  the  institu- 
tion of  the  KphoTS.  Although  in  the  reign  of  Theoponipus 
the  power  of  the  Ephors  first  reached  its  full  extent^  yet 
their  existence  may  be  traced  to  an  earlier  date;  and  the 
account  of  Herodotus,  who  classes  them  among  the  institu- 
tions of  Lycurgiis,  merely  mean:^  that  they  were  retained  in 
his  legislation^^.  Having  rejected  this  statement  in  its  plain 
and  literal  sense,  Dr  Arnold  adopts  with  some  variations  a 
modem  hypothesis  on  the  origin  of  the  Ephors,  which  I  will 
now  proceed  to  examine. 

Miiller  (Dor.  b.  in.  c.  5.  ^.  4)  first  conjectured  that  the 
number  of  the  Ephors  was  derived  from  that  of  the  five 
tciof^at,  or  hamlets  of  Sparta,  certain  territorial  divisions  of 
the  town.  In  what  manner  however  he  obtained  more  than 
the  four  KW/Jiat,  Pitana,  Limna;,  Mcsoa,  and  Cynosura,  he  did 
not  explain.  This  difficulty  was  afterwards  pointed  out  by 
Wachsmuth  (Hell.  Alt.  Vol.  ii.  P.  i.  p.  19.  n.  45.);  and 
Bocckh,  adopting  the  hypothesis  of  Miiller,  attempted  to 
remove  it  as  follows :  "■  Quintiini  putavcrim  dvfitjv  fuisse. 
Hesych.  Afjuij,  ev  STra^Tr;  (pvKtj  Kai  Totr(K,  ubi  toito^  con- 
jungenduni  esse  cum  €v  '^TrdpTrj,  nee  de  nrhe  Achaiee  cogt. 
tanduni,  ducet  sensus  communis.  Hujus  vici  cives  a  Dy« 
inanibus,  Dorica  tribu,  potcrant  divcrsi  esse,  ut  Am^aXi^p 
gens  Athenis  a  Aai^aXi^^v  demo,  etc.'"  (Corp.  Inscrijit. 
Vol.  I.  p.  G09)-  This  conjecture  however  must  remain  doubt- 
ful,  because  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  dLVfirj  does  not 
mean  the  tribe  of  the  Dymanes,  which  may  in  the  later  times 
of  Sparta  have  become  a  <f>v\^  tottik^.,  nor  is  there  any 
other  mention,  than  this  brief  notice  in  a  very  corrupt  graui- 
niarian,  of  this  supposed  Koj^iti.,  whereas  the  other  four  arc 
frequently  mentioned.  Much  more  satisfactory  is  the  ex- 
planation of  Miiller  himself  in  the  English  translation  of 
the  Uorians,  that  he  understood  the  five  divisions  of  the  town 


pof  S'  iiriTifta  0)fira<  Avxoupyov  /liv  airroif  fitjia^ioO  jitfit^trSin,  to  i'  tKtlirau  tfya 
T-oiv  fiii  -rpotrrJ^otMrii*  nvtm^e'vai,  Scrat>Q  viii.  p.  StiS.  Thc  Utter  Blateni«nt  of 
Ephoruft,  whauvcr  may  have  beeo  ila  uuth  ui  thin  inslance,  taken  in  &  gmenl  tcn$« 
b  the  exact  revene  of  thc  truth :  the  tendency  of  tradttioa  »l  uH  times  hM  been  to 
uczibc  to  celebrated  nuncs  the  works  of  unknown  or  ob»c;ur  pciwiw. 


spartan  Constitution. 

of  Sparta  to  couaiiit  of  the  four  Ktt^fuii,  and  the  ttoXis  itself, 
the  hiU  on  which  was  the  temple  of  Minerva  ^aXKioiKoi 
(Vol.  II.  p.  550.  and  see  Paus.  iii.  17  ad  init.).  It  acems  in- 
deed evident  that  "  the  Ktoum  lay  around  the  voXt^  properly 
no  callwl"  (the  words  of  MiUler,  Vol.  ii.  p.  50):  in  which 
case  the  voXn  cuiild  not  be  included  in  then),  but 
must  have  formed  the  centre  and  head  of  a  fifth  division 
of  the  town,  Dr  Arnold  however,  silently  ndoptiiig  Miiller's 
hypothesis,  stjites  it  thus:  '■'^The  five  ephori  were  probably 
coeval  vith  the  fir»t  settlement  of  the  Dorians  in  Sparta,  and 
were  merely  the  municipul  ma^strates  of  the  five  der/ii  which 
composed  the  city,  Messoa,  Pitaim^  Limniu,  Cynosura  and 
ihe  Aegidae,'^  p.  (Hfi.  Now  (to  pass  over  the  word  ^rjfiot 
applied  to  the  kw/^qi  of  Sparta,  as  iliey  were  originally  called, 
or  <pv\at,  as  they  afterwards  became),  whence  does  it  appear 
that  the  Aegidie  was  a  territorial  division  of  the  town  of 
Sparta  ?  Herodotus  calls  the  A'tyel^ai  a  (pv\^  ^€ya\*J  in 
Sparta,  i.  e.  a  numerous  'ycyos',  or  ^pparpia  (see  Midler 
Orch.  p.  32*1  n.  Boeckh.  ib.  p.  fi09.  Hermann  Griech.  Staats- 
Jt.  ^.  24.  n.  !))  ;  and  there  is  no  reason  for  sup|)osing  that 
ever  became  a  local  name.  As  to  the  time  at  which  Dr 
Arnold  derives  the  ephors  from  the  five  iriufiai'',  Miiller  is 
of  opinion  that  "  the  AegidR^  did  not  become  a  Doric  phra- 
tria  or  oba  till  after  the  taking  of  Amyclai  (Orch.  p.  374). 
It  roust  however,  in  order  to  support  Dr  Arnold's  hypothesiB, 
be  a.<^umed  that  the  Aegida;  became  from  a  y^vos  a  local 
diviition  at  the  first  conquest.  But  as  he  has  given  no  re- 
Terences,  it  is  impossible  to  tmderstand  the  grounds  of  his 
opinion  without  further  explanation. 

The  extension  or  creation  of  the  Ephoralty  is  attributed 


II  Thii  Argument  u  to  the  oriifui  of  ihe  Epbon  uHumes  that  their  oRntber  wm 
ll*ty»  the  Rmme:  but  («s  hu  been  ri^'htly  sujcKCsteit  to  me),  although  ihe  Kphon 
■r  hare  cxiatcd  Froui  tiic  bcK'H'^Ki  y*-'t  "^  '\\avt  no  proof  that  they  were  a1waj« 
Ive  IS  nuinb«r:  their  number,  an  well  ah  their  powens  may  have  been  alimented  in 
the  time  of  Tbeopomput.  Od  the  other  hand,  it  it  to  be  obaerved  thai  no  nienlion  ii 
nude  of  an  incna-ic  in  the  number  of  Gphon,  oa  in  that  of  the  Homan  trihuncK:  in 
Uicr  innea  indeed,  when  the  power  and  dutiea  of  the  Epliont  had  bten  grcaily  inrreaiied 
Are  mtnar  Epbon  were  added,  who  were  probably  the  assistants  of  the  ochci  dve.  but 
withoiii  iharmg  the  chief  part  of  iheir  authority.  $ee  TtmjriiK  Ii«k.  Plal.  in  v. 
h^ofutt.  In  EtymoL  Ma|^.  p.  ■IDS.  AA.  cited  by  Ruhiiken  fur  i^i'typm  npx<iVT*<i  •t^a*- 
irf^n  ^  i»  SaxtltaUiapK.  teid  Ai/lpt%  i,  i.  e.  *■  for  O. 


52 


2>r  Amoid  on  t/te 


to  TheopompUb ",  who,  together  with  the  other  king,  Poly- 
dorua,  is  stated  to  have  greatly  curtailed  the  power  of  the 
popular  as^mhly  by  taking  from  it  the  right  of  originating 
or  modifying  any  measure,  and  leaving  it  a  mere  veto.  Dr 
Arnold  reconciles  these  apparently  contradictory  accounts  by 
»uppnsing  that  "  the  rhetra  of  Theoponipus  brought  inatter» 
between  the  Heraclidar  and  Dorians  to  a  criais :  a  reaction 
followed,  and  the  king  was  obliged  to  confirm  those  liberties 
which  he  liad  vainly  endeavoured  to  overtlirow.^  (p.  6i6.  n.)" 
Henceforth  the  S|)artan  constitution  remained  without  dis- 
turbance in  its  new  form. 

With  ttie  exception  of  these  two  constitutional  powers, 
all  the  internal  institutions  of  Sparta  were  subservient  to  the 
object  of  maintaining  the  ascendancy  of  the  Spartans  over 
the  subject  classes.  "  Hence  the  strict  obedience  required 
of  the  young  towards  tlie  old,  of  the  private  citizen  towards 
the  magistrate.  Hence  the  great  council  of  the  whole  body 
of  nobles,  the  public  assembly  of  Sparta,  discussed  only  such 
questions  as  the  council  of  elders  submitted  to  it,  and  had  no 
power  of  amending  any  measure  proposed,  but  only  of  simply 
accepting  or  rejecting  it.  Hence  also  no  private  citizen — I 
might  better  say,  private  soldier — was  allowed  to  s{)eak  in 
the  assembly."     (p.  {)44.)      Tliis  is  all  the  notice  bestowed  by 


'*  Amtoile  in  his  account  €f  the  Ijicedmiioniui  omstitution  seems  to  doubt  whether 
the  Ephuralty  wu  intended  to  give  the  |i«>|f]L-  s  sliare  in  the  f(uvenimcnc :  riTc  /lu  rdv 
PtftodtTtjv  (ire  ftd  TL'xti'  Titirv  (Tviiiriimostv  nre  hi«  wordK,  Pnl.  ii.  9:  ultlioiif^h  in 
■OMher  fihcc  he  itate*  that  THicopompus  diniim>lic<I  the  pnwer  of  the  kinpt  bj  the 
creation  of  the  Kphonlty  uiil  by  othd  meuurcs,  ib.  v.  II.  The  chief  difficulty  with 
rtj^anl  lu  (he  ot'igm  of  the  Kphors  in  otoAcd  by  the  speech  of  C'leomcnc*  la  Plutarch 
rieoiTi.  II).  who  In  teprcACiitcd  to  have  stfttcd  to  cht  LiicHlciiionuns,  in  defence  of  hi* 
slMtffhter  of  the  Ephon,  that  the  Hpbon  were  orifpiiKUy  the  deputiett  of  the  King*, 
nppoiiited  by  them  during  their  tottg  abMtice  from  home  in  the  McMenian  war,  autl 
that  friRii  tills  begiimtuK  thoe  ofitcetfl  gradually  encroached  an  ihc  power  of  thow 
whom  thcj  rcprL-scntcd.  If  Plutarch's  account  in  to  be  relied  npon.  the  mast 
probable  explaiutum  «rem»  to  he  ilut  Cleomenea  Ritiirepresentfd  the  true  facts  in  order 
to  make  a  good  caM  for  hlmiiclf. 

"  This explanatioa  had  been  suggested,  wiihont  Ih  Arnold**  knowledge,  by  Platnei, 
in  a  Gennan  journal :  see  llennnrtn  liriech.  ^laaualL  §43.  n.  3.  The  ancient  error, 
long  iince  corrected  by  Jlenagc,  thai  iii  Diog,  Latrt.  i.  «R.  Chilon  i»  aiatcd  to  banc 
been  the  iirst  of  tlie  Spartan  Kphon.  in  Olynip.  IWS.  I.  whereaa  it  is  nieani  that  he  waa 
the  first  of  the  college,  or  the  Eptior  eponymus  of  that  year,  aanht  not  to  have  been 
recently  revived  by  L.  Uindorf.  on  the  I'aK-hal  Chronicle,  p.  21!?.  MkUct  Vol.  tl. 
p.  I  Wt.  n.  a.  appeant  to  repeat  this  mistake,  though  he  refer*  to  Manto,  .<part»  Vol.  ill. 
Part  n.  p.  332.  wlio  corrects  it. 


Spartan  CanstitttUmi. 


53 


I 


Hr  Armilil  on  the  Gerusia ;  which  in  the  times  anterior 
to  the  wrcat  power  of  the  ephors  was  in  faet  the  nioftt 
prominent  fentitro  in  the  Spartan  constitution,  aiul  wielded 
the  chief  part  of  the  legislative  and  executive  sovereignly". 
It  was  a  council  of  98  members,  chosen'*  for  life  by  the 
SpartAiis  from  all  the  Spartans  above  60  years  of  age,  who 
were  candidates  for  this  dignity.  The  office  of  councillor 
was  considered  as  the  reward  of  %'irtuc,  that  is,  of  the  qua- 
lities considered  as  virtuous  by  the  Spartan  coniinunity,  and 
enjoined  by  their  laws;  and  the  choice  appears  to  have  been 
conducted  on  aristucratical  pnnciples,  and  to  have  generally 
fallen  (in  later  times  at  least)  on  a  narrow  privileged  class 
within  the  body  of  Spartans"".  The  gerusia  could  alone 
initiate  laws  and  decrees,  which  it  debated  with  the  kings, 
who  presided  in  it  by  virtue  of  their  office ;  and  any  legislative 
proposal  carried  by  a  majority  of  voices  was  then  laid  before 
the  a«isemblv  of  all  the  Spartans,  convened  by  the  tnagistratea 
for  that  purpose,  which  had  only  power  to  adopt  or  reject 
H  as  a  whole :  but  no  amendment  could  be  made,  nor  could 
any  private  citizen  speak  in  the  assembly.  Moreover  the 
couDcilloTH  were  the  supreme  court  in  all  criminal  oJFcnces, 
and  they  decided  not  according  to  written  laws,  but  accord- 
ing to  their  own  discretion.  Having  therefore  the  most  im- 
portant ]>arl  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  sovereignty*  being 
appointed  for  life  and  subject  to  no  legal  responsibility,  the 
gerusia  was  justly  considered  by  the  Greeks  as  an  oligarchical 
institution,  and  as  inconsistent  with  any  considerable  influence 


**  ol  yr^orm— «t  hrxBTaTovvm  Siraat  roi*  irpdyfiavt  t»Oci«L  Pui.  p.  3ltfi.  A. 
Yac  yrp6irrim¥  0lh  intvoJ  teal  alv^&rovrai  Kal  itHaat  Kal  Trfv  a'pX*)*'  tt*yi^^»'  'Imcc 
poitf^nvot ,  Aeschin.  (n  Tim.  p.  35.  Ttl!-  n'  y^pavain  van  rlx*  '^'Of  ii'tuuif  rd  upd-rot 
Dion*  HftL  II.  14.  rj  fiiv  Iff  ytpoi/aia  avvilpinw  AaKfOaifofloiV  AfpiMTOT'Oi'  -njv 
ToXiTciav.  PftUMti.  III.  IK  '2.  nnd  nthcr  puwsKot  ia  Wolf  on  Detn.  Lept.  p,  4Sti.  18. 
UtillcT,  Vol.  II.  p,  !«i.  n.  n,  Cicero  dc  Rfp.  n.  28.  wyi*  thai  ^'(Lvcurgu*  yipovrav 
|A|ccdM3lMiDe  appelUvlt  niiuM  w  quldem  pRuccM  xxviit,  quos  penra  aummiim  contUU 
TOluit  e**e,  cuni  im}>frii  Rumxnam  rex  tcoercl :"  but  the  powers  of  the  Span&n  Kings 
art  mote  conrcUy  dencrifacd  by  Aristotle  Pol.  in.  14.  atn-i)  {ij  AAKHfim)  (iatriKtia.) 
irrlw  ■«  dirAwv  r'fwt\v  ffTpuTtryfu  naTii  yievi  liiims.  and  Isocrsles  Nic.  p.  31  D. 
AoAtiiufioviow — uIkoi  fiitr  6\tyapxouiiivom.  trofid  ii  -rAti  troXtftov  0aviX<iitip.ttn>v^. 

'-*  The  mode  of  election  <loe«  oot  clcarljr  Appcu-;  but  it  i«  stionjcly  reiuured  by 
.\jiaiocIe,  KrfTu  rnf  Kplow  ia^l  irat^piiiftsv,  Pol.  1 1.  0, 

'*  MuUer,  b.  lit.  <.  vl.  Ij  1,  Aristotle  wys  of  the  KCTaa»  of  ElU  nfo  Hlpuwm 
immtrrttrruntw  civu  ■■]  ijiaiai'  rp  t«v  iv  AoKtialptovi  ytpcvrtait,  Pl>l.  v.  0. 


54 


Dr  Arnold  on  the 


of  the  body  of  Spartans ;  hence  Demosthenes  says  that  the 
Spartan  councillor  is  lord  of  the  community  {deavoTtf^  rwv 
flroXXaJv,  in  Lept.  p.  4«9-  20.);  and  the  effect  of  this  au- 
thority on  the  internal  affairs  of  Sparta  may  be  illustrated  by 
reflectinj^  that  **  the  institution  of  the  gerusia  (as  Miiller  has 
remarked)  was  in  fact  in  its  main  features  once  established  at 
Athens,  when  Lysander  nominate<I  the  Thirty,  who  were  to 
be  a  legislative  body,  and  at  the  same  time  a  supreme  court  of 
justice,'"  (Vol.  H.  p.  yd-)  =  ^^^^  comparison  however  is  not 
quite  accurate,  and  is  somewhat  unfavorable  to  the  Spartan 
constitution;  for  tliuugh  tlie  Thirty  of  Athens  might  have 
been  copied  from  the  Spartan  gerusia,  yet  at  Athens  there  were 
no  ephors  aniuially  elected  by  the  mass  of  the  jK^ople  to  con- 
trol their  power,  nur  was  there  any  popular  assembly  to 
exercise  even  a  silent  veto  on  their  proceedings'^. 

According  to  the  above  explanation,  the  Spartan  con- 
stitutiuu  alwut  tlie  tiuiL-  of  the  Persian  war  may  be  thus 
described.  The  whole  nation  or  society  was  divided  into 
tliree  orders.  I.  The  Doric  Spartans,  out  of  whose  body 
none  enjoyed  the  full  rights  of  citizenship.  2.  The  I'erioEci, 
who  were  not  slaves,  but  were  excluded  from  all  political 
rights  enjoyotl  by  the  Spartans:  they  lived  in  the  country, 
or  in  small  towns  of  the  Laconian  territory,  and  cultivated 
the  land,  which  they  did  not  hold  of  any  individual  Spartan, 
but  paid  fur  it  a  tribute  or  rent  to  the  atate^  or  body  of 
Spurtan^s,  being  exactly  in  tlie  same  situation  as  the  possessore* 
of  the  Romain  domain,  or  the  Ryots  in  Hindostan  before 
the   introduction   of  the   Permanent   Settlement".      3.    The 


"  Perh«p"  iht  resemblance  between  ihc  Thirty  of  Athens  and  the  Spaitan  (ieniata 
goes  DO  further  than  thU:  that  the  uumbcra  of  ^oth  were  the  ume,  and  thit  both 
bodiu  had  great  power.  For  the  Thirty  did  not  like  the  tlerukia  act  direetly  aa  a 
court  of  juitice,  but  only  compelled  ihr>  lenate  to  go  through  the  forms  of  judieaiure, 
(PhilDl.  .Muiu  Vol.  I.  p-  -t-i.!.)  The  nature  of  the  office  af  the  Thirty  coiTeii|>onds 
much  more  closely  to  thai  of  the  Itotnan  deccmrint. 

'*  A  state  Df  tltini^,  bearing  vome «mdo^  to  that  m  Iiaconia,  (til.  three  cirdotof  ^ 
penim*,  of  tliree  difTercTii  races)  existed  in  Ireland  noon  after  iia  invanion  by  the  Nor- 
mans and  the  N«xonB  or  Englinh.  The  latter,  in  a  ittaie  of  servitude  in  their  awn 
country,  accoinpamed  their  tiiaalere  in  thit  expedition,  and  retained  in  Ireland  both 
their  tuperiority  ai  conquennv  and  inferiority  an  conquered.  ^^  Anglici  TKWtram  Inha. 
bilantev  terrain,  gut  se  Focant  mrdt^  natitmit,"  wf  the  Irish  In  ■  letter  addrencd  about 
the  middle  of  the  l-lth  century  to  the  Pope.  Fordun.  Hist.  Scot.  Vol.  in.  p.  !)<|fi. 
Compare  Thierry.  Ili«l.  of  ihe  Nonnan  contiucst,  Vol.  m,  p.  135.  Kngl.  Tnuisl. 
'*  Thus  the  iren  of  English  race  who  had  come  to  Ireland  la  the  train  of  the  NormanB 


fpartau  ConstihiHon. 


55 


Ilelots,  the  servile  class :  who  differed  from  the  Athenian 
slaves  in  not  being  saleable  out  of  the  country".  They 
were  partly^  like  the  aerfs  or  villeins  of  the  middle  ages, 
adteripii  gM*tB^  and  tilled  the  estates  of  the  individual  Spar- 
tan landlords,  to  whom,  like  metaye.rs^  they  paid  a  rent  of 
a  fixed  portion  of  the  gross  produce  of  the  soil  * ;  and  partly 
they  attended  their  masters  as  domestic  servants;  waiting 
on  them  at  the  public  tables,  taking  care  of  their  children, 
accompanying  them   as  esquires  in  the  field,   &c. 

Of  these  three  classes,  the  Helots  ap]>ear  to  have  had  no 
rights  whatever,  except  the  right  of  not  being  sold  out  of 
the  country,  and  perhaps  not  without  the  landed  estate  to 
which  they  belonged.  The  I'erioeci  were  certainly  freemen  and 
nut  slaves;  but  their  rights  seem  to  have  been  wnfined  to 
the  poasesaioD  of  laud,  aiul  the  administration  of  sonic  petty 
municipal  afiairs*'.      They   were    excluded   from    the    great 

•en  placed  in  m  middle  state  between  the  Utter  «nd  the  native* ;  and  their  Uni^uage — 
bi  their  own  country  the  mmi  despised — held  in  the  iile  of  Erin  an  iniennnliati;  rank 
between  tb»t  of  the  new  govcraracnt,  and  the  I'eUic  idiom  of  die  vanijuiihed  people — 
dcgnded  br  the  conquest,  like  the  {wpulAtJon  which  spoke  It." 

**  Epharu»  in  Stntm  vtii.  p.  .*Uh'i.  nayi  tJli*i  Uie  hclota  sutrcDdcred  an  two  condl- 
tiocn,  I.  that  they  should  noi  he  wld  out  of  the  country,  and  2.  that  their  maAteni 
•hould  not  be  able  to  liberate  them.  This  m  nnc  of  the  muiy  cases  where  existing 
imtiiutiiHu  liave  been  referred  lo  an  imaKinary  contract:  for  it  woiJd  be  abniird  to 
mtrpjKMe  that  priionen  would  stipulate  that  they  should  not  be  liberated  by  their 
mMlen.  The  vto£ixii^ot*w  of  Hparta  did  not  cotrespood  to  the  iihertini  of  Kome ; 
fur  the  fonuer  were  manumitted  by  the  ftuteon  ([rounds  of  public  policy,  the  latter 
hy  their  inastent on  grounda  of  private  kindneM.  TheaccxMim  of  Archeniachus  (Athen. 
Ti.  p.  2)M  A.  Fhot.  in  -rcpt^rrin  p.  xm.  IK.)  that  some  of  the  Iloeotiatis  of  Arne 
becatne  the  ulave*  of  the  Theauliann  on  condkion  that  their  mMtcis  •hould  not  sell 
them  nut  of  the  country  or  have  the  right  of  life  and  dcatti  over  them,  la  liable  to  no 
objectioa  of  ihiji  kind. 

**  At  one  time  aa  much  a«  a  half,  qfitou  wav  ooaov  Kaftntiv  dpmipa  4>rpft,  Tjrrtmu 
Bp.  Paua,  IV.  14.  n.  The  rent  now  uitually  paid  by  tile  French  tnitojtera  la  half  the 
pHce  of  the  entire  produce  of  the  i^oil.  To  this  class  of  helou,  Livy'i  detcrlptJon  of 
the  loeuurc  of  Nabis  refers:  "  Ilotaruni  dcLntle  ()U)dam  (hi  nunt  jam  indc  anriquitu* 

aateOani,  agreaie  genui] per  oimie*  vicoi  nub  verbeiibus   act!    necaniur," 

Xtxir.  'Zi,     On  the  nicaniof;  of  casteUanua  oee  Jtuperti  on  Livy  v.  A. 

■'  This  it  conjectured  by  AluUcr  from  the  circumstance  of  the  Periorci  living  in 
WXnr,  which  were  in  late  time*  ilctarhcd  from  Sparta  by  T.  tjuinctius,  and  by 
Aogaatua  cotutitutcd  into  a  Kparatc  community  (the  'H\«ti'(>(pffXciicwi<cv,  i.  e. 
imitpfiidwnt,  not  /rec  Laconiann},  b.  lit.  c.  il.  |^  I,  3.  There  were  aliio  at  one  time 
KJiXoi  laiyiidol  among  (he  Pentvei,  Xen.  Hell.  v.  :i,  9.  and  AluUer  haa  retnarked  that 
Paoa.  111.  32.  &,  mentioiu  an  inliabitant  of  Acria.'  in  Larotiia  who  was  an  Olympic 
victor;  Gbuling  on  Aristot.  Pnl.  p.  4H5.  haa  miggeated  that  thU  pemon  tnighl  have 
been  an  fileutheroUconlBn :  ind  ahhough  Aliillci  Proteg.  p.  428.  baa  obHtved  that 


56 


i>r  Atwfid  on  the 


legislative  as&embly  of  the  state^,  from  all  command  over 
Spartans,  civil  and  militarvi  from  the  public  tables  and  edu- 
cation, and  from  the  city  of  Sparta.  The  entire  goveniment 
of  these  two  classes,  as  well  as  of  their  own  order,  was 
vested  in  the  Spartans,  whose  political  constitution  may  be 
briefly  described  as  follows.  The  legislative  sovereignty  was 
shared  between  the  great  assembly  of  all  the  Spartans,  and 
the  gerusia,  which  body  could  alone  initiate  any  legislative 
measure:  while  the  assembly  could  only  accept  or  reject  it 
as  proposed  to  them,  nor  could  anything  be  said  except  by 
a  public  magistrate.  The  judicial  sovereignty  was  shared 
by  the  gcrusia  and  the  Ephors :  the  former  had  the  criminal, 
the  latter  the  chief  part  of  the  civil  jurisdiction.  Besides  the 
command  of  the  army  most  of  the  other  administrative  powers 
belonged  to  the  Ephors,  who  were  annually  chosen  by  the 
Spartans  from  their  own  body. 

This  being  then  the  construction  of  the  Lacedaemonian 
state,  the  question  is  whether  it  was  by  the  Greeks  consi- 
dered as  an  oligarchy  on  account  of  the  situation  which  the 


the  words  of  Pnuuniu  diiifia  trorl  i\vn9to»ucn¥  ftppear  to  refer  to  a  period  earlier 
than  the  estAhlUhmciit  of  the  Eleutheroluotifftiu  bj  AugiMtua,  yn  th?  Liaconiaii 
PericKi  were  virtually  indcpentlmt  froin  m  much  earlier  period,  proh>abljr  (Viuii  StHt 
■.  c.  after  which  Sparta  never  fully  recorcred  her  authority,  and  certainly  fnnn  W2 
D.  c.  af^er  the  defeat  of  Nafaix.  But  the  Pcritrci  doubtlenii  apprnadtcd  thr  condition 
of  the  hclotn  much  niof r  nearly  than  that  of  the  Spartanji ;  for  aIthouf;h  they  were 
somciimca  employed  in  placc«  of  Iruit  and  authority  (Tlitic.  riii,  G.  22.  H.  Xen. 
Anab.  V.  1.  IS),  yet  when  the  nuniher^  of  the  Spartans  had  muth  dinunishcti,  the 
Mtate  wa«  forced  to  cmplny  even  hclotit  in  public  situatioas  (Xen.  HclL  iii.  h.  12). 
The  opprnaion  of  the  Pericpci  and  their  readineM  tn  revolt  appears  from  many  pa>- 
Mi;et,  Clintoni,  F.  H.  Pan  ii.  p.  40fi.  n.  ff.  Generally  (oo  pcritMH  are  joined  with 
alavea,  a«  if  they  belonged  to  the  t>anK  general  clasji.  Thus  Plata  sayA,  that  when 
hia  perfect  atate  ta  corrupted,  (he  gnvcmnrx  will  cnatavc  those  whom  chcy  rormerly 
proucted^  vtpioiKatn  t»  Kai  ouii-raii  ixoitTiv,  Dc  Kep.  nil.  p.  .'V47.  Aristotle  inakea 
the  periaci  of  Crete  corrcspoiid  to  the  helots  of  Sparta,  ri.  10.  So  in  another  place 
he  Myn  that  the  beet  of  all  u  that  the  husbandtnen  Bhauld  be  Klave-s,  of  liitTercnl 
races;  Uiv  next  best  that  they  should  be  perioxi  of  a  batboroun  race:  PoL  vii.  10. 
compare  what  iMcniiea  Pan.  p.  37')  c.  aayi  of  the  Hpartana,  riv  Htjuiu  -wvptoitiovt 
wptiftfu^ui,  »;aTaio*/\tmttatiip«¥v  avTiivTtiv  ^V)(a«  owcdf  i}ttoi«  •]  Tac  T^i.  oU'rr«v, 

•>  Gottling  on  AristoL  Pol.  p.  UU.  infer*  that  the  Perictci  were  not  admitted  to 
the  itcKXi]a-ia  ftom  the  words  of  Archidamus  in  addrcniug  titat  asseinbly,  w^iW^jv 
yap  Hrkairovw^vloiK  xal  dc^oytirQfa^  'wapiptait>t  pfnou  rj  dKx^,  Thuc.  I.  tlO,  by 
Jrrpytirotnt  undentandlng  the  wtpiouiot.  But  the  two  words  signify  the  uiiie 
thing  by  dificxcni  means.  Peloponnesians  are  opposed  to  Athenians  as  being  without 
the  Iithmiu;  dsTvytirovn,  the  neighbours  of  Lacedstnnn,  to  those  who,  like  the 
Athcniaoa,  ytjv  Sxai  ^ovvi,  whow  tmltory  Ilea  at «  disiwicc. 


spartan   ConatiiuHon. 


57 


Spartans  held  with  respect  to  the  I'erioeci,  or  on  account  of 
the  disposition  and  admiiuBt ration  of  the  sovereign  power 
ivilhin  the  Spartan  body :  »o  thai  it  would  have  equally 
been  called  an  oHgarcliy  if  there  had  been  no  such  class  as 
that  of  the  Perioeci. 

lu  the  first  place  it  may  be  observed  that  the  ancient 
speculative  writers  are  nut  uniform  in  their  language  with 
re&pect  to  the  Spartan  government;  and  though  (as  Dr  Arnold 
says)  "  every  oue  knows  that  the  Spartan  government  was 
an  oligarchy,  and  that  it  was  the  head  of  the  oligarchical 
interest  tliroughout  Greece^  (p.  640),  yet  its  constitution  is 
sometimes  called  by  other  names.  Thus  Plato  dou1)ts  whe- 
ther it  ought  not  to  be  called  a  rvpavvis*  or  despotism,  on 
account  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Ephors«  or  a  royal 
government  on  account  of  the  kings;  while  at  other  times 
no  state  seemed  more  democratical :  ^^  altliougli  (]ie  adds) 
not  to  call  it  an  aristocracy  (i.  e.  a  government  of  the  apicroit 
or  best)  is  altogether  absurd.""  Leg.  iv.  p.  712,  So  too 
Isocrates  says  in  one  place  that  the  Spartans  established 
among  themselves  an  e<iual  democracy  (p.  270,  cf.  p,  152  A.), 
and  in  another  that  the  Spartan  government  was  a  demo- 
cracy mixed  with  aristocracy  (p.  265.  A).  To  the  like  effect 
are  the  remarks  of  Aristotle:  "  Some  pcrams  contend  that 
the  best  form  of  government  is  one  mixed  of  all  the  forms : 
wherefore  they  praise  the  Laced ifnumian  constitution,  some 
saying  that  it  is  composed  of  oligarchy,  monarchy,  and  demo- 
cracy— a  monarchy  on  account  of  the  kings,  an  oligarchy 
on  account  of  the  councillors,  a  democracy  on  account  of  the 
Epbors :  others  saying  that  it  is  a  despotism  (rvpavut';)  on 
account  of  tlie  Epliors,  and  a  democracy  on  account  of  the 
public  tables,  and  the  otlier  regulations  as  to  the  ordinary 
mode  of  life."  Pol.  11.  (i.  In  another  place  Aristotle  says 
thai  "  the  test  of  a  well-mixed  constitution  is  the  uncertainty  of 
its  name:  thus  the  Spartan  cunslitution  is  sometimes  called 
a  democracy,  because  the  rich  and  poor  are  treated  in  the 
BAIDC  manner,  as  to  education,  dress,  and  food ;  and  because 
the  people  liave  a  shore  in  the  two  highest  offices,  by  electing 
the  one  and  l>eing  eligible  to  the  other :  sometimes  an  oli- 
garchy, because  it  has  many  oligarchical  institutions,  such  as 
thut  none  of  the  magistrates  arc  chosen  by  lot,  that  a  few 
Vol..  II.  No.  4.  H 


88 


Dr  Arnold  ow  the 


persons  liave  power  to  pass  sentence  of  banishment"  ami  death, 
&c."  A  fragment  of  a  work  on  Law  and  Justice,  written 
in  the  Doric  dialect,  and  attributed  to  Arcbytas  the  I'ytha- 
gorean,  contaius  the  same  doctrine:  ^*  Laws  and  states  ought 
to  be  compounded  of  all  the  forms  of  government,  and  to 
have  something  of  democracy,  something  of  oligarchy,  some- 
thing of  royalty  and  aristocracy  :  as  in  Laceda?mon,  where 
the  kings  ore  monarchical,  the  gerons  oristocratical,  the  ephurs 
oligarchical'*,  the  bippagretic  and  youths^  deniocratical.'" 
(Stoh.  XLiii.  13*.)  A  nearly  similar  view  of  the  Spartan 
constitution  is  taken  by  Polybius,  who  repreisenlN  it  as  com- 
bining the  excellencies  and  peculiarities  of  all  the  dilfercnt 
forms  of  government;  and  he,  as  well  as  the  authors  just 
quoted,  considers  certain  institutions  as  characteristic  of  the 
several  forms  of  government,  and  united  in  the  Spartan  state, 
(vi.  3.  8.  VI.  10.)  It  is  of  course  evident  that  none  of  these 
writers  could  understand  the  terms  monarchy,  oUgarchy  or 
aristocracy,  and  democracy,  in  their  strict  sense,  as  signifying 
governments  in  which  one  person  ahme  governs  in  which  a 
few  |>ersons  or  the  best  fl^oH«  govern,  or  in  which  the  majority 
atone  govern ;  as  every  state  must  be  governed  by  some 
definite  number  of  perstms,  whicli  must  be  either  one  or  seve- 
ral, und  if  several,  either  more  or  less  than  half  the  com- 
munity. 

In  all  these  passages  the  application  of  the  terms  mo- 
narchy, royalty,  and  despotism  to  the  Spartan  constitution  is 
sufBciently  obvious:  but  the  vacillation  between  oligarchy 
and  democracy  may  seem  less  easy  of  explanation.  If  indeed 
we  take  the  term  democracy  in  its  proper  sense,  as  meaning 
a  government  in  which  the  sovereignty  resides  in  the  greater 


w  IV.  9.  If  thi»!angut|:c  w  precUe^  MiiUer  i*  wronp  in  supposing  that  banishment 
wu  never  m  rc^lar  punlshmftit  at  Sparta,  aec  Vol,  ii,  p.  3311.  A61. 

■*  It  ii  ruriouR  to  obHcire  how  authon  vary  ]n  coiuidenng  the  name  iiutitutioni 
or  powen  as  characteriHtic  of  diflercDt  romi»  of  govcmmcnt.  Thus  IMato  rails  the 
EphondenpcKic,  AriMutle  calln  then  dmiocnttic,  and  this  wriicr  itiakcs  djcm  oligar- 
chical. If  the  Kphors  hud  jointly  poucsscd  the  entire  wivcretgn  powrr,  the  (Ircrks 
would  bate  called  the  govcmmeni  a  iwairrtiat  i.  e.  a  very  narrov  olij^archy. 

*•  Kdpt'i  Adl  tw^a-^fpi-Tut.  The  »op(n  here  meant  are  the  30(t  knight*  who  were 
coraniandetl  by  the  hippajact*.  See  Meiir«)us  Misc.  La*,  ii.  4.  p.  117.  Miiller  Vol. 
II.  p.  'i&7-  °*  *•  Aluller  p.  2A6.  laya  Uiat  thew  ».6fioi  were  ctustn  on  aruitKrutie 
principles,  i.  e.  according  to  merit,  but  see  Xen.  Hell.  iii.  3.  if. 


Spartan  CrmstUttHan. 


59 


part  of  the  body  politic  of  the  community,  there  is  no  doubt, 
when  we  remember  that  ever  Spartan  citizen  voted  in  the 
supreme  Icgi.slativc  assembly,  and  that,  according  to  thu  con- 
stitutional act  of  Sparta,  the  people  had  sovereign  power"", 
that  the  Spartan  government  was  strictly  a  democracy.  But 
in  practice  it  was  an  oligarchy  or  aristocracy,  that  is,  its  con- 
stitution worked  as  if  the  sovereignty  hod  belonged  to  u 
minority;  in  other  words  the  government  was  administered  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  most  slates  wliicli  were  truly  oligarchies. 
Hence  it  was  not  improperly  called  an  oligarchy,  as  the  Roman 
government  after  Augustus  is  called  an  absolute  monarchy, 
although  the  emperor  was  only  sovereign  in  fact  and  not 
in  name:  so  we  call  the  government  of  France  under  Napoleon 
an  absolute  monarchy,  although  the  sovereign  power  was 
nominally  shared  by  the  emperor  with  the  shadow  of  a  senatx?. 
Sparta  no  less  acted  in  the  aristoeratical  interest,  and  was 
not  less  the  head  of  the  uligarchical  party  throughout  Greece, 
than  if  its  cunstitutioii  hail  been  in  form,  as  well  as  substance, 
aristoeratical.  Legally  it  was  a  democracy,  but  in  spirit,  in 
the  practical  elFect  of  its  institutions,  it  was  lui  oligarchy:  a 
distinction  tlie  same  as  that  pointed  out  by  Thucydtdes, 
when  he  says  that  Atliens  under  Pericles  was  in  name  a 
democracy,  but  in  fact  a  monarchy"'.  Tilings  which  in  reality 
are  one  thing,  and  in  appearance  another,  are  not  unfre<}uently 
called  by  both  names;  as  Catullus  calls  the  promontory  of 
Sirmin  Imth  an  island  and  a  peninsula^ :  because  as  seen 
from  above  it  has  the  appearance  of  an  islaud,  though  it 
is  in  fact  connected  with  the  shore  of  the  lake  by  a  narrow 
tongue  of  land  :  for  although  an  island  cannot  be  a  peninsida, 
and  a  peiiimiula  cannot  be  an  island,  yet  as  it  is  one  and 
geenis  to  be  the  other,  Catullus  gives  it  the  names  of  both. 

The   above    passages   do    not   indeed   determine   whether 
Sparta  was  considerwl  by  the  Greek  politicians  as  an  oligarchy 

"  U#i«  a  HVfiUw  ii/u"  ^o'  K^BTQC^  Rhcm  of  hycatga*  in  Plutarch  Lye  6.  tec 
JIuDa,  VoL  n.  p.  B7.  n.  1.  Tyrtanw  ap.  IMod.  Esc.  Viw.  vn— x.  5-  itiftcv  tc  xXijffo 
«fw<r»  Kal  Kap^xK  iirtirSai.  In  thtse  puutga  int^ov  )iignilic9  the  order  of  Spuuiis 
u  ia  I>ion  r«»iuii,  as  epiuttniud  by  Zoiuns,  it  U  «.pplied  to  the  Kouuui  f  opuluf. 
nr  Pktncian  imlcr  without  th«  Plehii^  Nicbuhr,  Vol.  ii.  note  SiVJ. 

*  iytywrro  Xoytp  fiiv  itiftoKpariti,  ipyv  i'  iHrd  tov  v/ovrov  avipdi  tipxifi  **■  56. 
'  PenimulHiuni  Simiio  insulammqnv 

0«I[c. 


60 


Dr  Arnold  on  i%e 


in  respect  of  its  citizens,  or  of  its  FericDci ;  but  they  shew 
that,  in  estimating  the  character  nf  a  government,  the  superior 
and  not  the  subject  class  was  alone  taken  into  the  account. 
Thus  Plato  says  that  it  was  an  aristocracy  not  by  reason  of 
the  Pericpci,  but  of  the  gerons :  and  when  he,  Isocrates  and 
others  call  it  democratic,  they  allude  to  the  jM>wer  of  the 
whole  Spartan  order  in  making  laws,  and  in  electing  magis- 
trates, to  the  equality  of  education,  to  the  public  tables,  &c. : 
which  are  <lemocraticaI  institutions  in  relation  to  the  body 
of  Spartans,  though  they  were  aristocratical  in  respect  of  the 
Pcrioeci  and  Helots ;  that  is,  they  were  institutions  contrived 
to  perpetuate  the  rule  of  the  Spartans  over  the  inferior  and 
subject  orders  by  training  them  to  an  austere  discipline,  and 
forming  them  into  an  army  of  occupation  in  an  eneray^s 
country, 

The  principal  authority  for  Dr  Amold^s  view  that  the 
Spartan  constitution  was  oligarchical,  because  it  was  '*  an  aris- 
tocracy of  conquest,  in  which  the  whole  conquering  people 
stood  towards  lAie  conquered  in  the  relation  of  nobles  to  com- 
mons,'' (p.  640),  is  furnished  by  Thnc.  iv.  126,  where  Brasidas 
exhorts  his  soldiers  not  to  fear  superior  numbers,  inasmuch 
as  **  they  came  from  states,  in  which  not  the  many  rule  over 
the  few,  but  the  few  over  the  many,  having  gained  their  power 
by  no  other  means  than  %nctory  in  the  field.*"  There  is  no 
doubt  that  this  assertion  is  true,  and  that  one  of  the  most 
important  characteristics  of  the  Spartan  system  was  the  sub- 
jugation of  the  Periceci  and  Helots,  and  the  exclusive  privi- 
leges of  the  Spartans :  nevertheless  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  aristocratic  character  of  the  Spartan  government  was 
derived  from  this  circurostancc  alone,  or  that  tlie  internal 
arrangement  of  the  Spartans  is  to  be  entirely  placed  out  of  the 
question.  Thus  when  Niebulir  justly  compares  the  Sjmrtans 
and  Perirrci  with  the  Roman  patricians  and  plelx-'ians  (VoL  i. 
p.  *7(>),  it  does  not  follow  that  he  means  that  the  Spartan 
government  was  called  an  oligarchy  for  the  same  reason  that 
the  early  Roman  government  was  an  oligarchy  :  it  does  not 
follow  that,  because  these  two  orders  stood  to  each  other  in 
the  same  relation  in  both  states,  therefore  the  internal  arrange- 
ment of  any  two  corresponding  orders  was  the  same.  A 
ttimilar  view  is  taken  by  Wachsmuth,  Hell.  Alt.  1.  i.  p.  188, 


tan  Const 


61 


who  s^s  that  in  respect  of  the  Perioeci  the  Spartan  consti- 
tution was  an  oppresfiive  aristocracy :  but  these  words  du  not 
imply  that  its  coinmuii  name  of  aristocracy  had  not  its  origin 
in  clifi*erent  circumstances.  Nor  again  when  Miiller,  arguing 
against  the  absurd  supposition  tliat  the  Periccci  were  ad- 
mitted to  tiie  legislative  assembly  of  Sparta,  says  tiiat  the 
constitution  would  have  been  democratic  if  the  Periceci  had 
possessed  that  right  (Vol.  ii.  p.  22),  does  he  imply  that  it 
was  oligarchical  because  they  did  nut  possess  that  right ;  for 
although  their  admission  might  have  made  it  democratical, 
it  does  not  follow  that  their  exclusion  made  it  oligarchical. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  thai  the  exclusion  of  the  Peri«rci 
from  the  rights  of  citizenship  had  a  must  important  influence 
on  the  Lacedaemonian  state,  and  gave  it  in  this  respect  an 
aristocratical  character:  yet  it  is  not  therefore  certain  that 
this  was  the  prominent  consideration  in  the  minds  of  the 
Greeks  when  they  called  it  an  aristocracy.  In  all  ages  the 
form  of  government  has  been  considered  as  determined  by 
the  arrangement  of  the  sovereign  power  in  the  body  politic^ 
without  any  account  being  taken  of  the  subjects  and  slaves. 
Thus  there  are  states  of  the  American  union  which  ore  not 
the  less  called  democracies  because  the  number  of  slaves  ex- 
ceeds that  of  the  freemen :  nor  in  the  Greek  states  were  slaves 
ever  included  in  the  enactments  of  new  legislations  (Wachsmuth 
II.  1.  p.  J1).  The  example  of  Athens  proves  that  the  most 
oppressive  conduct  of  a  dominant  community  towards  sub- 
jects under  the  name  of  allies  is  quite  consistent  with  the 
most  complete  democracy  icithin  that  community".  When 
therefore  we  consider  the  constitution  of  the  Spartan  body, 
the  restraints  imposed  on  the  assembly^,  the  extensive  powers 
of  the  cuuDcilloni,  their  election  fur  life,  their  irresponsibility, 
the  exercise  of  all  jurisdiction  by  the  magistrates,  the  absence 
of  written  laws,  of  paid  ufticcs,  of  offices  determined  by  lot, 
and  oilier  things  thought  by  the  Greeks  characteristic  of  a 
democracy,  it  is  difficult  not  to  think  that  these  circunistunces. 


•  *•  lAko  the  Vraetiu)  nobility  they  fc»rm  b  dmiracncy  anum^  Uiemnelvrs,  alLhnit(;h 
Uiey  may  be  the  niJen  over  Bubjecu  many  times  their  own  number."      JVicbuhr, 

Vol.  I.  Ik  an. 

**  Arutotle  attributes  tlie  content  of  tlic  Spartan  people  to  iheir  shore  in  the  consti* 
tuUon  through  die  Kphvn,  nut  throiigli  itie  ecdnia,  Pol.  ii. !). 


09 


Dr  Arnold  on  the  ' 


and  not  the  situation  of  the  subject  classes,  gave  to  the  Lacc- 
da?monian  government  the  name  and  character  of  an  oligarchy. 
This  is  distinctly  recognizcil  by  Miiller,  who  **  calls  the  Spar- 
tan constitution  an  aristocracy  without  the  least  hesitation, 
on  account  of  its  continued  and  predominant  tendency  towards 
governing  the  community  by  a  few,  who  were  presumed  to 
be  the  best"  (b.  iii.  c.  y.  ^  18).  The  same  view  is  implied 
in  all  the  numerous  passages  respecting  the  Lacedaemonian 
government  above  quoted,  in  which  the  structure  of  the 
Spartan  body  is  alone  attended  to.  So  Aristotle  in  describ- 
ing the  decline  of  this  constitution  says  that  the  Ephors  being 
chosen  from  the  people,  and  having  extensive  and  almost 
arbitrary  powers,  the  kings  were  compelled  to  court  them; 
so  that  the  government  became  a  democracy  from  an  aristo- 
cracy (ii.  9):  whereas  if  the  other  view  were  correct,  no 
change  in  the  rights  of  the  Spaiians  would  have  made  the 
government  democratic  without  a  change  in  the  rights  of 
the  Pcrifcci.  Again  he  says  that  the  women  are  not  suffici- 
ently restrained  by  law  from  luxurious  indulgence,  and  con- 
sec[uently  tliat  the  lawgiver,  intending  tliat  the  whole  state 
should  \yc  austere  and  temperate  in  their  habits,  luid  succeeded 
only  so  far  as  the  men  are  concerned :  where  the  *  whole  state** 
evidently  excludes  the  Perioeci  and  Helots.  The  mysterious 
secrecy  which  Thucydides  ascribes  to  the  Lacedremonian 
state  could  not  have  existed,  if  any  part  of  the  community 
had  lx"en  governed  on  popular  principles  (v.  tis).  Can  it 
indeed  he  doubted  that,  if  the  Athenians  had  prevailed  in  the 
Peloponnesian  war,  and  had  sent  their  Lysander  to  remodel 
the  constitution  of  Lacedicmon,  they  would  have  set  about 
making  a  democracy,  not  with  raising  the  subjects  to  citizens, 
a  measure  which  every  Athenian  would  have  considered  ab- 
solutely destructive  of  his  own  state,  but  with  opening  the 
close  constitution  of  the  Spartans,  by  reroovuig  the  restric- 
tions on  the  popular  assembly,  by  giving  the  criminal  and 
civil  jurisdictioa  to  numerous  and  popular  tribunals,  by 
making  all  magistrates  responsible,  by  establishing  nomina- 
tion by  lot,  by  abolishing  the  minute  and  severe  regulations 
of  private  life'',  and   the   many  other   measures   wliich   an 

»  ^  Th«t  intCTfcrencc  with  the  freedom  of  ptivue  life  which  chMBCWriMd  (he 
whole  Sputaa  ^yslcni  wu  u  Hlien  to  the  spirit  of  democracy  m  it  «m  coagcniol  to 


oartan  ConsHtuiiwi. 

Athenian  demagogue  would  have  well  known  how  to  apply  ? 
And  if  after  (he  first  act  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  and  the 
successes  of  the  Athenians  such  cluuiges  liatl  taken  place, 
although  the  Perioeci  might  have  been  left  in  their  ancient 
degradation  or  expelled  from  the  country,  would  the  oli- 
garchical Boeotians  and  Megarians  have  thought  an  alliance 
with  T>aceda?mon  more  beneficial  than  with  the  democratic 
Argos**? 

The  question  however  as  to  the  origin  of  the  name  of 
the  T,8cctiiemonian  government  cannot  be  decided  in  the  pre- 
cise and  definite  manner  which  the  foregoing  remarks  would, 
seem  to  point  at;  as  a  certain  degree  of  obscurity  and  un- 
certainty is  necessarily  caused  by  the  gradual  tracsttion  of 
the  Spartans  into  the  inferior  classes.  Fur  the  citizens  were 
not  divided  from  the  subjects  and  Ijonduien  by  a  plain  and 
broad  line,  such  as  that  which  separated  the  Athenians  from 
their  allies  and  slaves;  but  the  several  orders  ran  into  each 
other  in  a  manner  which  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
Spartan  constitution,  and  of  the  changes  which  in  the  process 
of  time  it  underwent,  prevents  us  from  correctly  apprehending: 
though  it  is  evident  tlmt  (at  one  time  at  least)  all  the  Spartans 
had  not  equal  rights,  and  that  within  the  body  politic  there 
was  a  class  whose  interests  coincided  with  those  of  the  sub- 
jects and  bondmen.  It  uppears  that  during  the  Peloponne- 
sian war,  if  not  at  an  earlier  jwriod,  the  Spartans  were  divided 
into  two  orders,  called  Kfjnals  and  Inferiors^  u/uoioi  and  t/wo- 
^ciover.  From  a  passage  in  Xenophon's  Anabasis  (iv.  (>.  \\) 
it  would  seem  that  the  rank  of  an  Equal  was  hereditary :  at 
least  Xenophon  represents  himself  as  saying  that  all  the  Lace- 
diemonians  who  belong  to  the  class  of  Equals  praclise  the  art 
of  stealing  from  their  childhood  {evdu^  ex  trai^wv),  at  wliich 
age  merit  is  of  course  impossible.  Probably  the  son  of  an 
£qual   was  an    Equal,   unless  he  lost  his  rank    by   not  per- 


llut  of  irisiocracy,"  p.  &17.     Here  I>r  Arnold  CoTfitcts  hla  own  ciplaiuUoD,  and  miles 
the  Spvun  ({Dvemmeiit  ui  uxunctwcy  in  rc»pect  of  the  dtitens. 

"  Nfff^oiTTtv  o-^tiiri  ■nji'  'Apyiimv  itifioKparlau  auruat  iXtyapxovitivoM  ^avov 
wirpi^oft^v  tliNti  rov  AuKti^llnol^iml^  XoXrrfuti,  That.  T.  Sh  Coini»ftre  Aiiftophuc* 
fen  Aih.  lit.  p.  7^  A. 

9¥tiav  tfitrrtuu  ■wdvra  vXiJif  AmKtoiiiKfiv 
•roiro  yap  -ri  vvjcop  Jx^P**"  ^*^*  *"'  wpavniKoa'' 


64 


Dr  Arnold  on  the 


forming  the  ilutics  inijiosed  on  him  by  law  (Xen.  Rep.  Lac. 
X.  7)*  Tliat  the  Kquals  were  considered  as  forming  a  higher 
rank  amoug  the  Spartans,  may  be  inferred  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  king  when  in  the  field  was  attended,  among 
others,  by  three  Equals  (ib.  xiii.  1*").  Demosthenes  (Lcpt. 
p.  489.  20)  says  that,  '*  whereas  in  Sparta  the  reward  of  virtue 
is  for  the  councillor  to  become  a  master  of  the  state  together 
with  the  Equaf8^\  at  Athens  the  people  has  that  power,  and 
there  are  safeguards  of  religion  and  law  to  prevent  any  other 
person  from  obtaining  it."  The  meaning  of  Demosthenes 
in  this  passage  (which  is  not  expressed  with  greater  precision 
than  his  purpose  required)  appears  to  be,  that  the  sovereign 
power,  or  the  legislative  and  administrative  authority,  exercised 
by  the  whole  body  of  citizens  at  Athens,  in  Sparta  belonged 
to  the  council  and  the  Equals.  It  may  moreover  be  re- 
marked that  the  oftoTtiiot  of  Xenophon  in  his  Cyropicdia, 
which  are  generally  admitted  to  be  copied  both  in  name  and 
substance  from  the  ouotot  of  Sparta,  were  a  small  body  who 
ruled  over  the  mass  of  the  Persian  nation ".  From  these 
vague  and  inciilental  notices  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Equals  were  an  aristocratical  class  within  the  body  of  Spar- 
tans, who  were  much  employed  in  public  offices,  and  had 
great  influence  on  the  government ;  originally  iierhaira  se- 
lected for  their  merit,  and  afterwards  their  rank  became 
hereditary :  it  mxist  also  be  remembered  that  scarcely  in  any 
state  did  virtue  less  agree  with  the  common  scnliments  of 
mankind,  or  the  standard  of  morality  as  it  ought  to  be,  than 
in  the  republic  of  Sparta:  its  virtue  consisted  in  an  implicit 
obedience  to  the  magistrate  and  a  strict  adherence  to  the 
duties  prescribed  by  law*^':  so  that  even  if  the  Equals  were 


■)  Rep.  L«c  Xtll-  2.  6mi  fUit  ya>  v/Krroi>  otikoi  iv  dtt  dri'To/x  koI  -roXt  9vv 
B»T^>  !•■  Dindotf  COTTCCU  <rvv  Tolt  v&p  aimi,  compOLring  :>.  1.  rf>«ijt>«i  tj  in^Xtv 
fiam\i«t  tkitl  Toiix  airw  ovTiv.  1  should  prefer  «al  ul  avv  airrtB.  See  Elnuley  ai  Mcdi 
B6A. 

>*  The  Bfiotai  probably  includes  all  the  public  nuft^trtteR.  See  Wolf  ad  1. 
Miiller,  b.  iii.  e,  &.  §  tt.  Schjifer  od  1.  conjectures  cbal  ^cth'  t^k  vfioitjf  mean*: 
*  with  his  peers*  (tnit  aeines  <tl«iciien)  i.  e.  with  hin  coilcaguet,  the  other  geroiUi 
bat  I  an)  not  aware  of  any  place  in  which  <i^aiot  hat  this  Bense.  Un  thb  lubjcct 
genentUy,  ice  C'ngius  de  Kep.  Lac  i.  10. 

*  iXly^i  ^r-rtv  o&Toi  i>i  ifi^Ttuai  KoXov/tevoi  -rvXXwv  JvriiV  -rm*  oXXwii  Ilrpo^i' 
^Hpn dfixo*^^"  I'-  '■  ^  comp.  t.  X  lb.  i.  fi.  ft. 

'  "  The  mcMute  oT  what  b  CTcrjrwherc  called  aiul  estccincd  virtue  and  vice  ia 


spartan  Con*titutwn. 


66 


originally,  nr  for  tlie  most  part,  sclcclt-d  for  their  meritorious 
qualities,  these  qualities  would  have  been  thought  meritorious 
in  scarce  any  other  state  but  Sparta. 

Of  this  privileged  class,  or  of  some  class  possessing  a 
similar  precedence,  was  probably  composed  the  siimii  assembly, 
which  seems  to  have  been  convened  in  times  of  need,  and  for 
fX'casions  which  were  either  not  o{  sufficient  importance  to 
require,  or  of  too  pressing  urgency  to  wait  for,  the  decision 
of  the  entire  Spartan  body.  Doubtless  this  assembly  was  more 
frequently  convoked  than  the  other  ^'i  and  thus  an  additional 
restraint  was  laid  on  the  power  of  the  Spartan  coniitia. 

This  latter  assembly  is  only  known  from  its  incidental 
mention  by  Xenophon  in  his  account  of  the  conspiracy  of 
Cinadon,  which,  as  it  alone  throws  much  light  on  the  rela- 
tion in  which  the  Equals  stood  towards  the  inferior  Spartans 
ami  the  subject  classes,  n^ay  be  here  noticetl  with  some  detail. 
lu  the  year  399  b.  c.  the  Ephora  received  information  of  a 
treasonable  plot  contrived  by  one  Cinadon,  a  man  of  vigor- 
ous mind  and  body,  but  nut  one  of  the  Equals.  In  answer 
to  some  questions,  their  informant  stated  that  Cinadou  de- 
sired bim  to  count  how  many  Spartans  there  were  in  the 
market-place :  that  he  countetl  the  King,  the  Ephors  and 
councillors,  and  others,  to  the  number  of  about  40,  when 
Cinadun  said,  *■  These  are  your  enemies,  but  all  the  other 
persons  in  the  market-place  to  the  nimiber  of  mure  than 
4000  are  your  allies:''  that  Cinadon  had  stated  that  there 
were  not  many  concerned  with  him  in  the  same  plot,  hut 
they  thought  that  they  were  in  concert  with  all  the  Helots 
and  Neodamodcs,  and  with  the  Inferiors  and  the  Periccci : 
for  whenever  mention  was  made  of  Spartans  in  the  presence 
of  any  of  these,  none  could  conceal  that  he  would  gladly  eat 
their  flesh  raw.  Having  obtained  further  information  as  to 
the  manner  in    which   the   conspirators   intended    to   procure 


ihc  Approtwdon  or  dbUke,  pnuae  or  blune,  which  hy  ■  nocrct  and  ticit  consent 
e»Ub)Uhes  itMlf  in  the  sereritl  societies,  iribet,  and  tlubs  of  men  in  the  world  :  whereby 
■rvcrml  artioru  come  to  find  acdit  or  disgrftce  anionK&t  Uiciu,  ftccordii)({  to  the  judge- 
moii,  nuxlmk,  or  fuhion  of  that  place."     Loclce  oii  the  IJnderstandiu};,  ii.  2S.  10. 

*"  XcDOphon  Myi,  aiiii  tii'p  tttkpiip  KaXovfuiUfV  fKKXtitriap  ^u\\s^at^*<:.  Hell. 
III.  3.  B,  u  if  the  cnovrning  nf  ihitt,  ai\<1  nnt  of  the  targe  ustembly,  would  naturally 
hate  been  the  fimt  uep. 

Vot..   II.  N.).  i.  1 


^6  Dr  Aruuld  on  the 

arras,  the  Ephors  devised  a  pretext  for  sending  Cinftdon  into 
the  country',  wliere  he  was  ajjprehended  by  his  attendants, 
was  chargeil  with  the  ofTenfte  imputed  to  him ;  and  having 
confessed  in  the  presence  (if  the  Ephors,  and  stated  in  reply 
to  a  {|uestiui),  that  his  object  was  to  he  inferior  to  none  in 
Laceda^mon,  be  and  his  fellow-conspirators  were  dragged 
round  the  city  and  slain  aniidst  all  tlie  circumstances  of  dis- 
grace and  torture*. 

From  this  account  it  evidently  appears  that  at  the  time 
of  Cinadon's  conspiracy  the  Inferiors  were  so  fully  identified 
with  the  subject  classes  as  even  to  be  op]x>sed  to  the  Spartans 
in  name  as  well  as  interest.  The  oligarchical  conBtitution 
of  the  Spartan  bo<Iy  lia<l  become  so  close  and  severe,  that 
there  was  scarce  any  distinction  between  the  unprivileged 
portion  of  the  body  politic,  and  the  various  classes  which 
were  subordinate  to  that  bmly  politic  as  a  whole.  The  regular 
decline  in  the  number  of  Spartans,  which,  in  spite  of  the 
legal  encouragements  to  marriage  (Wachsmuth,  H.  A.  il.  1, 
p.  S5\ — 3),  was  caused  by  tlie  mischievous  institutions  of  their 
state,  made  it  necessary  for  them  partially  to  break  down 
the  barriers  which  excluded  the  inferior  classes  from  the 
full  rights  of  citizenship:  hence  even  the  Helots  were  in 
later  times  employed  abroad,  in  the  army  as  hoplites,  and 
occasionally  in  a  civil  capacity  as  harmosts  (Xcn.  HelL 
III.  5.  12).  The  Helots  moreover  assumed  the  appearance 
of  a  regular  class  in  the  state,  and  Iwcame  both  useful  and 
formidable  to  their  masters  in  a  greater  degree  than  the 
Athenian  slaves ;  because  they  wore  not  foreigners  kidnapped 
in  distant  countries,  and  joined  by  no  common  bond  of  nation, 


»  Xm.  Hell.  111.  3.  4 — II.  onnp.  Pnlyim.  ti.  14.     Amtnde  PaI.  v.  7-  uysthM  i 

rcToluiions  take  jiUcc  in  uiniocimcics  irrair  avi!/Hu^«  tlv  ftti  ftt-ri )(ri  nif  Tt^Mf ,  giving 
the  cxuDplc  of  ('inftdon.  It  is  not  expreuly  sutcd  ih«t  Cmaidon  wu  a  Spu-tan  i  but 
this  appcant  to  follow  from  screral  circutntitances  in  the  nnnativv  af  Xenophon  :  and 
Aristotle  would  hare  said  Tije  xoXtTcfur,  not  -rtiov  -rj/icav,  ^  the  magMtracies,'  if  Cinadon 
had  nut  been  a  citizen.  iMKimtes  Panath.  p.  3-tG.  B.  assertM  with  great  confidence 
that  the  Lacedemflniann  had  slain  more  of  the  Greekt  without  a  trial  than  hkd  ever 
been  Cried  at  Athens  i  but  it  doei  not  clearly  appear  whether  he  means  iiatiTen  or 
foreigners.  In  p.  271-  B.  he  statct  that  the  Kphon  had  power  id  slay  without  a  trial ; 
Ke  Dr  Arnold,  p.  M9.  n.  y.  This  statement  appears  to  be  confirmed  by  Xcnophoa'a 
Mcouni  of  Cinadon's  exoctiliaii  :  bat  Plularch  states  thai  Agc»U*uft  together  with  (he 
Epliors  unlcred  cenaiii  Spaitaos  to  be  executed  witbsut  a  trial,  ovityA^  Hxa.  iUtt^ 
TtOavaraififvou  itpaTtttO¥  £ira/rTi«T«>i',  Agcail.  3^. 


Spartan  Conntitution. 


«T 


language",  or  familvi  but  natives  cultivating  the  land  with  their 
wives  and  children,  inheriting  their  disabilities,  and  with  them 
a  hatre<]  for  iheir  niasterft.  The  moral  claims  of  the  Helots 
for  their  cnfranchibt-ineiit  were  much  stronger  thau  those  of  the 
Athenian  slaves :  the  former  rather  resembled  the  European 
serf*  of  the  middle  ages,  the  latter  the  negro-slaves  in  the 
American  states  and  the  West  India  islands :  the  former 
might  tin  easily  have  been  incorporated  into  the  slate  as  the 
villeins  of  England  or  the  clients  of  Rome :  but  the  dif- 
ference of  race  and  language  presented  an  almost  insuperable 
obstacle  lo  the  incorporation  of  the  Athenian  slaves.  It  was 
for  these  reasons  that  (with  few  and  unimportant  exceptions) 
we  never  hear  of  senile  wars  in  Attica,  and  othei*  states 
which  were  supplied  with  imported  slaves  and  did  not  rear 
any  at  home:  while  the  Helots  from  the  very  beginning  were 
a  disobedient  and  rebellious  body,  keeping  (as  Aristotle  says) 
a  constant  watch  on  the  misfortunes  of  their  masters  (Pol.  ii,  7)» 
and  on  many  occasions  bore  nrms  against  the  Spartans,  some- 
times so  as  to  endanger  their  very  existence.  Thus  Epliorus 
described  the  Helots  as  revolting  with  the  Parlhenia;  against 
the  Spai'tans  immediately  after  the  first  Mcssonian  war 
(Strab.  VI.  p.  280).  The  protracted  contest  which  the  Helots 
entrenched  in  lihomc  waged  against  the  Spartans,  who  were 
at  length  forced  to  suffer  them  to  depart  on  terms,  is  well 
known.  Equally  celebrated  is  the  cx)ld-blDoded  assassination 
by  which  the  Spartans  privately  despatched  alwut  2000  of  the 
bravest)  and  therefore  most  dangerous  of  these  bondmen 
(Thuc.  IV.  80).  In  the  50  years  alliance  made  by  the  I^ace- 
da'monians  and  Athenians  after  the  taking  of  Pylos,  it  was 
stipulated   that,   if   the  slaves  of  the   Laceda^moniaus  should 

>  The  Hdott  all  spoke  the  Mme  lanjfumgt  (Thoc  in.  112),  ihe  danger  of  which 
k  remarked  by  I'Uto.  l^g.  vi.  p.  777*  The  lleloi  (jopulaiion  niorcav«  mainuinnl 
ttadf  b^  Dalum)  reprnduclioti.  ax  the  icrtii  in  the  i:uuntr>'  were  able  to  marry  and  rear 
Ulcti  ditldrmi  (s««  Hume  on  the  Pojiul.  of  Anc  Natiaiu,  Warkk,  Vol.  iii.  p.  4;ttf. 
MuUcr  1 1,  p.  37)  I  whereas  at  A  ihcnti,  and  in  other  suies  RtmiUr]}'  itituated,  the  ntimbcTB 
of  the  ilaTCfi  were  kept  up  hy  imptn-laUuu,  as  thvy  could  be  purrhased  n(  a  cbcapcr 
rale  from  the  klaTe>merchani  than  ihcy  could  be  reared  at  bume.  The  dUniniilion 
olwrted  In  the  numbcn  of  ihe  slaves  in  ihe  Knglish  \\'e%t  India  Inlands  (whrre  fresh 
muyfibn  cannot  he  ptocured  by  iuiporuiior)  hat  probably  taken  place  in  all  bodiea  of 
aUrca  not  belnnxing  to  the  claj^*  nf  tuaf* ;  only  the  additional  nunibaft  procured  from 
>liwJ  prcrentctl  the  NnaU  number  of  birthft  from  being  perceived.    See  Wachaniuth 

1. 1.  ^  173. 


68 


Dr  Arnold  on  the 


revolt,  the  Athenians  should  assist  the  Laced semonians  against 
thera  with  alt  their  forces :  but  this  condition  was  not  mutual 
(Tfauc.  V.  33).  Similar  revolts,  and  similar  apprehensions 
of  danger  often  occur  in  later  times.  After  the  battle  of 
Leuctra,  many  of  the  Peria?ci,  and  all  the  Helots  rcvolteil 
to  the  Thebans.  They  kept  up  this  character  to  the  very 
last,  when  they  joined  the  llomans  in  the  war  which  extin- 
guished the  independence  of  Sparta'". 

Living  therefore  in  the  midst  of  a  united,  a  warlike, 
a  tributary,  and  a  hostile  population,  the  Spartans  were  com- 
pelled (as  Dr  Arnold  has  remarked)  to  be  constantly  on  the 
watch,  and  to  maintain  such  an  attitude  as  would  awe  their 
subject  enemies  into  suhnnssitin,  and  afford  them  no  oji- 
portunity  for  a  successful  attack.  Tlie  rents  and  tributes 
of  the  inferior  classes  afforded  them  at  once  an  immunity 
from  taxation,  and  the  means  of  devoting  their  whole  time 
and  attention  to  the  maintenance  of  their  dumiiiioa  :  *'  Kxempti 
(as  Tacitus  says  of  the  ancient  Batavians)  oneribus  et  col- 
lationibus,  ct  tantum  in  xisuni  praeliorum  scpositi,  vclnt  tela 
atquc  arma,  Ix-llis  rcservantur/'  In  this  principle  we  may  find 
a  solution  of  the  difficulty  stated  above  with  respect  to  the 
double  character  of  the  Spartan  constitution.  In  order  to 
maintain  the  power  of  the  Spjirtans  over  tlie  subject  classes, 
it  was  necessary  that  their  government  should  be  military; 
and  in  order  that  their  j^overnment  should  be  military  it  was 
necessary  that  it  should  be  oligarchical.  The  unity  and 
promptness  of  command,  the  regular  and  auiitere  discipline, 
the  watch  and  ward,  the  subordination  and  iui])licit  obe- 
dience to  authorities,  the  silence,  the  restraint,  the  monotony, 
the  hard  fare  and  gymnastic  exercises  of  a  camp,  could  not 
exist   under   the  changeable  and  many-beaded  dominion,    the 


*♦  S«e  Xen.  HcU.  i.  2.  IR.  vi.  5.  2tl.  vn.  I.  29.  vii.  2.  2.  Plutarch  A^aoL  32. 
Stmbo  Vllt.  p.  3*"tB.  CompiUC  ThUf.  IV.  WL  dtl  tw  vaWn  \aK€f>aifiatiiint  irfiow 
T»»«  »t\tavtv  Trjt  rfivXiiK^i:  -wipi  fidKta-ra  unHco-n;***.  Plsto  Leg.  V  I.  p.  777-  "^oWd' 
«r  i^tiiofnerat  -rrpi  -rav  fiiteT<ntiilie»  vi>](riiv  tt<r<$i'iat  trirvaTri<tti\  ylyvttr9ut  iva 
<c«a  <rufi0aiv4i.  ArisloU  Pol.  ii.  10.  nl  eift'mtt  atpitrrarTai  -jroXAiiin-c.  The  Sp«- 
tatia  had  power  of  lift  «nd  death  ovfr  the  Helwti  (Aristot.  aji.  Plutarch.  Lye.  28.), 
which  they  doiihtlcM  h^il  not  orer  the  Peritrci :  the  ThauliniiK  had  not  thin  power 
over  their  Peneiit»,  abOTe  p.  :.o,  n.  lU.  Miiller,  Vul.  n.  p.  -ill,  *ayn  thai  Plato  calK 
the  Itacoiiian  bnndaftclhv  hanlnt  in  (ireece:  liiil  I  <-Min*>(  Hml  ntiytbinf  tv  this  ffTrct 
In  the  p»aage  which  he  rcfcra  to,  Lcr.  vi.  p,  77(1. 


spartan  ConsfituHon. 


09 


publicity^  and  varied  existence  of  a  dcmocracv-  Hence  we 
may  say  that  Sparta  was  an  oligarchy  hy  reason  of  its  sub- 
ject classes,  but  was  ralied.  an  oligarchy  hy  reason  of  the 
constitution  of  its  citizens.  The  Spartans  could  not  govern 
their  subjects  without  Iwing  themselves  governed  by  a  few  ; 
and  being  govemetl  hy  a  few,  their  government  was  an  oli- 
garchy. It  was  for  the  purpose  of  dnmestic  rule  that  the 
ascetic  principles  of  legislation,  which  Mr  Itentham  rightly 
attributes  to  a  motive  of  security*',  were  put  in  force  at 
Sparta.  With  this  view  the  Spartans  were  soldiers  hy  pro- 
fession {yeyviTai  Koi  cocbtcjTai  Ttiv  woXejuiirwf,  Plutarch. 
Pdop.  2.S) ;  with  this  view  they  dedicatwl  tlu'ir  whole  time  and 
energy  to  warlike  exercises,  and  required  the  same  devotion 
from  the  youths.  Accordingly  those  ancient  writers  appear 
to  be  somewhat  mistaken,  who,  after  representing  the  Lace- 
demonians as  being  trained  only  to  military  virtue  (which 
is  true),  proceed  to  blame  their  lawgiver  for  making  a  nation 
of  eoniiuerors,  unable  to  exist  without  external  dominion 
founded  on  successful  warfare  (Plato  Leg.  i.  p.  (i30.  Anstot. 
i*ol.  II.  9.  VII.  2.  VII.  H,  15).  The  discipline  engendered 
by  these  institutions  might,  no  doubt,  be  turned  to  foreign 
conquest ;  and  there  was  great  temptation  to  abuse  a  power 
which  they  possessed;  nor  can  it  be  denied  that  this  power 
waa  often  abused :  but  its  proper  and  direct  object  was  se- 
curity against  domestic  not  foreign  enemies;  the  coercion  of 
ndiscontenied  tributaries  and  unruly  slaves,  not  territorial  ag- 
iisenient  or  distant  conquests.  To  the  same  source  may 
be  traced  many  other  singularities  of  the  Spartan  institu- 
tions, such  as  tlie  prohibition  to  leave  the  country  ",  travel- 
ling being  like  desertion,  or  quitting  a  man's  post  in  the 
field.     So  the  interdiction  to  the  citizens  of  all  money-getting 


*'   Principlw  of  florals  and  LegisUlioii,  Vol.  l.  p.  1(1, 

*•  lMMniite»  BusiT.  p.  'i2'>.  A.  luitrs  Oiat  Oiis  prohibilimi  onljr  catvnded  to  the 
fighting  men  :  in  which  atntcmcnt  be  la,  According  ut  HBrpacration  in  niil^tirov, 
aKifirmetl  by  aihrr  wnien  on  (he  lACcdsniaiiiaii  comtilucion;  allhounb  Anxtmlr 
•»j«  thai  rhe  prohibitinn  wax  gm«m],  ihe  object  being  (o  prevent  the  Lacfldvniainian* 
fran  •etiutriag  a  love  for  rnreign  instiLuttimfl.  If  tlie  LuedmnoniaiiN  act|uirc<)  a 
lore  for  foreign  institulionis  iliey  would  probably  ckuu:  to  be  good  (wildiera :  but  it 
may  be  rca»«t»lily  wmjerlurKl  that  Ijuwrales  and  clio»e  who  agreed  with  him  were  so 
fir  rights  ttiau  althuugli  Uie  legal  proliihitinii  wa>  general,  it  «A^  ntily  enforced  with 
re^n)  to  men  ot  a  fighting  agr. 


7« 


Dr  Arnold  on  the 


pursuits,  and  even  of  the  use  of  money  itself,  was  founded 
ou  the  !»auie  fear  that  the  uiilitary  eflicicncy  of  the  soldier- 
citizen  might  be  impaired.  So  completely  did  the  lawgiver 
set  at  nouglit  those  moral  rules  which  most  nations  have  re- 
cognizeiU  tliat  it  even  seemed  worth  while  to  train  the  youths 
in  their  profession  of  warfare  by  sending  them  out  to  plunder 
in  llie  country  and  by  exercising  them  in  adroit  stealing,  in 
order  that  from  irregular  pilferers  they  might  ripen  into 
regular  soldiers.  By  these  mischievous  iDstitutions,  the  re- 
sult of  j^rcat  prudence  and  a  determined  resolution  working 
at  a  mistaken  object,  the  military  goveriiment  of  Sparta, 
having  been  made  an  oligarchy  within  an  oligarchy,  having 
so  successfully  discouraged  all  art,  science  and  literature,  that 
none  of  its  citizens  contributed  anything  to  the  delight  or 
instruction  of  mankind,  havuig  cramped  by  an  unbending 
system  of  legal  interference  and  inquisition  the  very  citizens 
for  whose  benefit  the  subject  classes  wurc  avowedly  sacrificed, 
until  their  numl>er  dwindled   to  insignificance",   and  having 


**  The  coDBbuit  decline  in  the  number  of  the  Spanaiw  U  tnccd  by  Mr  Clinura,  in 
hia  adminble  Appendix  cm  t1ie  {Kipiilftiinn  of  Anriait  (ireece  (p-  4ll)),  U)  the  unequal 
distribntlon  of  the  Unilji.  which  gradually  fell  inm  ehe  hands  of  b  few  pcrwm*,  uid  to 
the  prohibition  of  jjainful  emploj-rnenis,  which  prevcnied  the  citiKus  from  obtmining 
a  livelihood  by  their  own  indujiuy.  Compare,  besides  the  passages  quoted  bj 
Mr  CltnUm,  AriltoL  Pol.  v.  7-  'V  A«i<;i>^<ii^oi'i  fit  I'Xi'youc  ai  oiaiai  ifixoi^rai,  Kal 
f^etrri  iraitif  ih-i  an  l)AMa'i  Toit  yvtuftifton  ftdWov  mt  Ktirtvtiv  £>t«*  6i\i»otV. 
The  extreme  poverty  of  the  younjjOT  broihen  of  the  Spartan  families  is  atrikingly 
proved  by  a  fad  uieiitiuntd  in  Oic  lately  pubUshrd  fra^iieiits  of  Folybiiu,  that  it 
waa  an  aneient  and  prcvailinf;  practice  for  Arveral  brolhere  to  have  only  one  wife  among 
theiD,  anifl  the  children  were  common  to  all:  -rapd  niv  -roiv  AoKtSaifovtotv  kuI  ird- 
Tpici>  i|«  fcul  evftt'ific  Tfiti\  ivi'pax  ('x*'**  yufuiKa  nai  TcT-rupat,  Ti>t~<  (1.  ■MoTt)  ii 
Kai  vXtiotn,  ditKipom  oiTav,  Kdl  TCKva  toi^tidv  cifai  Kfsxvd.  XII.  ti.  in  Mai.  HcripL 
Vet  Vol.  II.  p.  3B4.  and  tee  Miiller,  VaL  ti.  p.  3H4.  This  pmcticc,  which  is  a 
proof  not  only  of  the  most  pinching  poverty,  but  kino  of  a  very  depraved  nute  of 
morality,  is  (1  hive  understood)  not  unmnimon  amoiif;  the  lower  dauies  In  some 
parts  of  Italy.  With  regard  to  the  decline  of  tbc  Spartan  population,  it  should 
likewixe  he  meniioiied  that  there  were  no  paid  offiecii  in  Lacednmon ;  and  the  public 
mAis  seem  to  have  been  always  ill  supplied,  ntitwiihsiandinft  the  iribates  of  the 
Foivci.  There  were  no  salaries  for  etUxens  serving  in  the  army  or  navy.  There 
was  IMJ  cUun  of  advocates,  rhetohciaiu,  or  sophists,  who  could  earn  a  subsistence  by 
pleading  causes,  by  writing  speeches,  or  by  iastmcting  the  youth;  medicine  waa 
not  a  profcMion,  and  literature,  even  if  under  any  circumstances  it  could  in  flmee 
have  produced  a  pecuniary  reward,  was  in  LtcedKanoo  discouraged  and  discounte. 
Danced.  In  thin  slate  of  things  a  law  of  compulsory  succetsicm  by  primogeniture 
vat  tantamount  to  a  law  that  all  younger  btotheir  and  unntairied  women  should  be 
bflgfin;  for  (as  Mr  riinton  has  properly  remarked  (rom  Aristotle)  the  public  tables 


Spartan  Constitution.  7^ 

perverted  by  its  system  of  legal  rewards  the  standard  of 
right  and  wrong,  succeeded  only  in  training  its  children 
into  warriors,  brave  indeed  to  an  admirable  degree,  but  de- 
void of  the  frankness  and  sincerity  which  usually  character- 
ize the  soldier:  for  though  in  their  dealings  with  one  an- 
other they  found  it  their  interest  to  practise  that  honesty 
which  the  proverb  attributes  to  men  united  in  a  bad  cause, 
yet  towards  foreign  states  their  conduct  was  as  notorious 
for  bad  faitb  as  for  an  uniform  regard  for  their  own  ex- 
ciusiTe  advantage", 

G.  C.  L. 


were  open  to  the  Spartan  dtbun  0DI7  on  the  same  conditioQ  that  a  public  inn  la 
open  to  a  modem  traveller,  that  he  pays  for  the  food  which  he  coDBumes.  The 
more  attentively  we  consider  the  Spartan  ctmstitution,  the  more  marvellous  it  seemt 
that  it  lasted  ao  long. 

**  See  Thnc  r.  105,  where  the  remark  of  the  Athenians  is  not  made  at  ran- 
dom, although  it  comes  fi^m  an  enemy  :  and  the  passages  collected  in  Meutaius  Misc. 
Iac  III.   .    UiiUcr,  VoL  11.  p.  410.  n.  c. 


ON  THE  HOMKRIC  USE  OF  THE  WORD  "HPQS. 


The  wurd  ^paii  occurs  at  least  110  times  in  the  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  and  once  in  the  byiun  tu  Aphrodite.  If  we 
could  asi-erluin  thu  sense  in  which  the  author  or  authors  of 
tliesL*  poems  used  it,  we  should,  I  am  persuaded,  be  able  tu 
apply  this  knowledge  to  our  enquiries  into  the  state  of 
society  in  the  times  to  which  the  poems  refer,  or  at  any 
rate  in  the  times  at  which  tlie  author  or  authors  lived. 
Besides,  I  suspect  it  would  throw  some  light  on  a  very 
interesting  question, — the  state  of  the  great  national  families 
which  ultimately  constituted  the  mixed  iKxIy  of  tlie  Greeks, 
as  these  families  stood  at  a  very  early  age,  though  not  the 
earliest  known  to  us  in  the  Greek  traditions.  The  age  in 
question,  too,  is  one  whicit  exhibits  strong  and  interesting 
analogies  to  particular  er&s  in  the  history  of  many  other 
nations ;  and,  besides  this,  it  is  an  age  as  to  which  we 
have,  through  tlie  Homeric  puems,  a  very  vivid  picture  of 
the  habits  and  feelings  of  those  who  acted  in  it ;  so  that 
the  enquiry  has  a  historical  and  moral,  as  well  as  a  philo- 
logical  interest. 

But  unfortunately  I  must  begin  by  owning  that  my  re- 
searches on  the  subject  have  not  satisfied  me.  On  the  one 
hand,  I  have  been  unable  to  verify  some  notions  wliich  have 
been  adopted  by  scholars  of  eminence ;  and,  on  the  other, 
I  have  succeeded  in  completely  overturning  four  or  five 
hypotheses  of  my  own.  That  which  I  shall  hereafter  sub- 
mit to  the  reader  is  a  v&ry  vague  one,  and  I  have  but  little 
confidence  in  it.  If,,  however,  we  cannot  get  at  the  truth, 
we  may  at  least  get  rid  of  some  errors. 

I  need  scarcely  remark  that,  as  we  are  enquiring  into 
the  Homeric  use  of  the  word,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
tlie  acceptation  of  it    which    prevailed  in    a   later   time,   and 


On  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  "Hpoxt. 


73 


which  is  mythological.  Such  is  die  account  which  Hesiod 
gives  of  the  fourth  race  of  mankind,  himself  living,  as  he 
says,  with  the  fifth  race. 

AvTap  eiret  nai    Toirro  y€fCK  Kara   yata  Ka\u\jfe, 

avdK  er    aWo  Teraproy  stti  ■)(9avi  TrovXvf^oTe'tpt} 

Zei/«    Kpov'tdijv  iTMrjce  otKaiorcpov  KOt  apetov, 

avcpwv  tjpoytuv  Bciov  yevos^  ot  KaXeovrai 

^fAideot  wpoTcprt  yeverj  kqt    aweipovu    yatav* 

cat  Touf   nev  TToXefxos   re  Kanoi  kui  divXoiri^  aivf^t 

Toy?  fi€V  e<p    ewTaTrvXtf)  Otjf^tjy   KaCfujidt  yairiy 

fuXeae  napvafievovv  fxtj\a}i>  ev€K    O'tcitrodao' 

TOf9   dc  Koi  er  vrjea-tTiif  uTrep  fieya  Xmr^a  OaXaactfi 

€5  Tpoitjt'  ayaywv    ]cXevr\^  evcK    ^UKOfxota. 

iiS    tjToi   Tcus  i^v  OatvxTot/  xcXos-  afXtpcKoXvij/e' 

Toi^  C€  Of^    avOptuirwv  pioTov  xai  t/de    owatrera^ 

Z«w    Kpovidrj^  KaTet/atrae  traTtip  es  velpara  yaitj^, 

KOI   TOt  fxev  vatowTtv  axiftea  tfvfAOv  eyoi/rc? 

ev  naKapb)!'  vi^aottrt,   trap     ilKsavov  jiaBvcivttv, 

oXpioi  tfpwe^ '   To'urtu  ^eXitjoea  xaprrov 

TpU  eTtc^  0aXXovTa  <p€pei  i^eicwpov  apovpa- 

"E.  Kol  '\l.  155 — 171. 
I  have  given  this  whole  passage,  in  order  to  com- 
prehend the  last  lines,  which  exhil>it  so  very  striking  a 
contrast  to  the  IIade»  in  which  the  Homeric  heroes  are 
placed  ',  and  which  Lucian  conKiders  so  hase  a  condition  of 
existence".  Menelaus,  it  is  true,  had  a  peculiar  fate"" ;  but 
it  seems  that  he  was  not  to  die  at  all.  These  notions  of  the 
dignity  of  a  preceding  race  l>elong  to  an  early  state  of  so- 
ciety; and,  as  civilization  advances,  more  time  is  conti- 
nually re<|uired  to  throw  the  prwreding  age  sufficiently  far 
backward.  As  men  gtx>w  more  sharpsighted,  the  distance 
must  be  increased  in  order  to  produce  the  mystic  effect. 
"When  the  worship  of  heroes  became  a  recognized  practice, 
the  greater  part  of  them  were  as  early  at  least  as  the  Tro- 
jan times.  i  put  out  of  the  question  any  instance  where 
the  making  a  hero  of  a  contemporartf  was  a  mere  piece 
of  flatttTy  :  any  hero  so  created  has  of  course  no  mytho- 
logical rank,  properly  speaking.      Thus  the  two  annual  sacri- 


*  Od.  XI.  npcctslly  V.  487,  foil. 
>  Dikl.  Mon.  Achill.  ct  AncU. 
Vol.  U.  No.  i. 


»  (M.  IV.  Ml. 


7* 


Oh  the  Homeric  use  of  ike  word  "'Hpoi^ 


fices  ofTerwl  by  the  Sicyonians  at  the  tomb  of  Aratus,  u 
mentioned  h^  Plutarch  in  his  lifo  of  Aratus,  the  sacri6ce£ 
and  honours  paid  to  Brasidaa  by  the  Amphipolitans  (Thu- 
cyd.  V.  II.)  W9  ^^1,  the  honours  shewn  at  Calauria  to  the 
tomb  of  Demosthenes  (if  that  be  the  meaning  of  the 
passage  iu  PausaniaSy  ii.  c.  34.)  cannot  be  considered  as 
implying  any  belief  in  the  mythological  character  of  the 
object  of  the  ceremony.  The  latest  mythological  heroes 
perhaps  were  those  who  fell  at  Marathon.  M'ausanios  Bays, 
Sc'/^ofxat  iiie  ot  MapaBatviot  tovtov^  re  ♦  oi  Trapa  Ttjv  ftayfTjy 
air€0aifovi  ripwa^  oko^'^okt£9,  xal  MupaOtava,  a<p  ov  tu* 
c^fiM  TO  ovofici  etTTif  Ktu  '  HpaxXea.  From  the  company 
in  which  we  find  these  heroes,  and  the  legends  jx-ciiliar 
to  the  place,  it  is  clear  that  they  had  acquired  a  mytho- 
logical rank.  Sounds  of  tumult  and  battle  were  nightly 
heard  there  by  any  who  had  not  come  for  the  purpose  of 
listening:  and  there  was  a  hero  Kchetlfeus  (or,  as  the  name 
is  elsewhere  written,  Echetlus'),  a  mysterious  champion  at 
the  battle  of  Marathon,  like  the  Dioscuri  at  tlic  battle  of 
the  lake  Regillus*,  or  St  lago  at  that  between  the  Spa- 
niards and  Moors ;  he  also  was  worshipped  at  Marathon.  In 
the  seventy-first  Olympiad  we  have  a  hero  forinally  created 
after  this  wise".  One  Cleomedes  of  Asty^uihea  killed  a  man 
at  the  Olympic  games,  boxing  with  him.  The  Hellanodicir 
refused  him  the  prize,  whereupon  he  went  mad,  and,  going 
back  to  Astypala^a,  pulled  down  a  school-house  upon  the 
heads  of  about  sixty  children.  At  this  the  people  of  Asty- 
paliea  wore  going  to  stone  him;  but  he  fled  into  the  temple 
of  Athene,  got  into  a  chest  there,  and  shut  down  the  lid. 
The  people  tried  to  open  it  for  a  long  while,  and  at  last 
forced  it,  but  there  was  no  Cleomedes.  They  sent  to 
Delphi,  to  have  this  explained,  and  received  this  response, 
YoT-aTo?  tfpojwp  KXeofi-rjdTj^  AcmnraXaievi, 
ov  Bwiat^  Ttfm0  tov  ^i)«Tt  &vvfTov  eovra. 
This  creation,  or  canonization,  of  a  hero  shews  that  the 
mythological  rank  had  by  that  time  (if  the  storv  be  really 


'  Attk.  r.  39.  g  4.  •  P»awn.  Attic  1. 15.  §  4. 

♦  Cic.  N'«t.  Dew.  rii.  fi.  II.  12.     Dion.  llal.  AiiL  Ham.  vu  IS. 
1  Fbuwo.  VI.  9.  §  3. 


On  the  Homeric  uae  of  the  word  "Tli^arf. 


76 


tts  old  as  Pausanias  makes  it)  become  defined  and  technical, 
like  the  degree  of  a  Doctor,  conferred  by  royal  mandate. 
The  age  before  the  heroes,  in  Hesiod,  is  the  age  of  the 
giants;  afterwards,  the  heroes  themselves  had  the  attribute 
of  great  size.  Thus  Pausanias*  says  of  Pulydanias,  yAyurrcni 
airavToiv  eyeuera  auOpoiTrmvy  irXtju  twi'  ifpiotov  KaXovfievwVf 
not  «  brj   rt  aWo  rjv  "Trpo  t£v  yjptoiiiv  OvtfTov  yevov. 

I  can  find  no  traces  whatever  of  this  use  of  the  word 
in  the  Homeric  Poems.  They  were  composed  (I  do  not 
speak  of  the  hymns)  at  a  time  when  the  heroes  were  living 
and  acting  beings,  or  so  very  soon  after,  that  no  mystical 
associations  hod  become  connected  with  the  name.  There  is 
no  passage  in  them  from  which  a  mythological  or  tradi- 
tionary dignity  must  necemari/y  be  inferred  :  the  only  ones 
to  which  we  con  apply  such  notions  are  the  following. 
Posidaon,  on  beholding  the  bulwarks  of  the  besi^ers,  com- 
plains : 

ToS  5*  ijTot  K\eo^  ea-Tai  oaov  t  eiriKidvaTai  j/ws* 
TW  0  eiriKijaoyTatf  6  r  cyto  kqI  4*oTpo9  AwoXXw*' 
ffpfp  AaonedouTi  voKitjaaM^v  aOXtiaavTe.  II.  vii.  4f5\—3. 
This  passage  certainly  proves  nothing ;  all  that  can  be 
is,  that  if  we  knew,  from  other  sources,  that  Laomcdon 
ras  a  mythological  liero,  we  should  recognise  the  connection 
between  him  and  the  building  of  the  walls  by  the  gods,  as 
a  natural  and  consistent  tradition.  But  the  passage  is  gene- 
rally considered  to  belong  to  a  later  time  than  the  body  of 
the  Iliad ;  and  so  is  the  corresponding  one  at  tlie  begin- 
ning of  the  I'ilh  book,  in  which  the  poet,  after  saying  that 
the  works  of  the  besiegers  would  not  long  resist  the  Trojans, 
ttrlls  us  that  they  were  built  without  due  honours  being  5>aid 
to  the  gods,  and  that  after  the  destruction  of  Trny  they 
were  swept  away  by  natural  convidsions  whicli  the  gods 
produced,  and,  among  these,  by  the  overflowing  of  the  rivers; 
and  there  he  speaks  thus  of  Simois, 

Kat   ^ifioeKj   nSi   iroWd   jioaypta   xat   Tpv<Pa\€tai 
Ka-mre<Tov  cr  Kovirjatj   Kal  tffuBewv  ytvos  av6piiv» 

11.  XII.   22 — 3. 
This  last  expression  is  exactly  in   the  spirit  of  the  passage 


'  Ptusau.  VI.  A.  S  1. 


76 


On  the  Homeric  u»e  of  the  word  ""Hpun. 


from    Hcsiod   before    cited,  and  may  be  added  to  the  other 
arguments  against  the  genuineness  uf  this  part  of  the  lUad^. 
In  Phcenix's  speech  to  Achilles^  this  passage  tx^curs : 

ovTw  Kal  Twy  irpo(r$ev  iwciSofieda  kXcc   av^pup 

ij^uwr.  II.  IX.  52i. 
Here  the  riptnei  might,  or  might  not,  be  considered  us  more 
than  common  men :  to  be  the  subjects  of  kXea,  or  balladft 
of  renown,  must  ba%'e  been  a  common  expectation  with  the 
warriors  of  Homer :  Odysseus  hears  a  kXc'o?  about  himself 
in  Phamcia'". 

There  are  two  passages  in  the  account  given  by  Odysseu» 
of  his  visit  to  Hades,  which^  in  the  same  way,  will  «uiV  the 
hypothesis  of  an  old  race  of  heroes  of  renown,  and  somewhat 
mythological  character,  but  which  do  not  necessarily  require  it. 
The  first  is  this : 

Tlmra^  d'  ovk  av  c^w  ftvO^couoi^  ovo    ovofi^vWf 

offtra^  tjpwwv  dXo^oui  tcov  t}6e  Ouyarpa^.      Od.  xi.  338. 
The  second  occurs  at  tlie  end  of  the  scene. 

Aurap  f'ydJi'  avrou  fievov  efirredov^  ft   T£?  eT    tXBot 

a»Spwv  tjpMutVf  oi  cij  TO  -rpwrSfv  oKovto. 

Kcri  »v  K    en    irpoTfpoii^   wov  dvepav,   oitv  «0f\6v   irep' 

[0jf(T€d   Tleipi0oov  T€,  0ewv  eptKudea  Teicwi.] 

aXXrt    TTptv  €irl  f$v€    ayeipero  /AUpia    wcKpiv, 

lix^  BeairetTin.  Od.  xi.  628 — «.'«. 
This  is  perhaps  the  ."Strongest  passage  :  the  line  about  Theseus 
and  Pirithous  is  indeed  sn^ipertep  ^dei;  but  the  opposition 
of  the  heroes  to  the  vulgar  ghosts,  edrta  fiufua  veupwv,  is  re- 
markable. Lastly,  the  speech  of  Antinous  to  OHvsseiis,  in 
the  Odyssey,  when  he  tells  the  story  of  the  I^npithsc,  con- 
tains the  word  "  i^pwa^  applied  to  the  Lapitha>,  who,  it  might 
be  contended,   had  a  mythological  character. 

*  Pcrhapa  I  ought  to  allude  lo  the  puu^n  where  Lh«  gnat  Teats  of  Hicngtli  gf 
•OHM  difltin^isbed  wvrion  uc  spoken  uf  as  bcinj;  eucb  as  to  require  two  oF  die  poet^ 
time.  Such  arc  It  v.  903.  xii.  383.  449.  But  iheiie  teem  to  me  to  pnire  raj  little, 
and  I  mucK  doobt  whether  we  arc  to  infer  fnnii  them  that  ordinary  moi  of  the 
Trojaii  era  were  meant  to  be  reprewni«d  as  supcricw  to  oniiaary  men  of  ihe  poet's 
time.  The  nifn  of  ihe  pre*ent  time  air  moitiaaed  merely  as  fumiithiDg  the  moK 
intcllii^iMc  and  familiar  unit*  fnr  the  calculation. 

'*  Od.  viit.  73.  For  m  conunent  od  the  cxpreulon  *\im  m1^i>  the  reader  nec^ 
only  be  referred  to  Mr  Frere*H  rery  itriereninx  article  in  the  Muicum  Criticum, 
Vol.  II.  p.  .MS. 

•I  Od.  VVI.9MI. 


On  the  Homeric  v^e  of  the  worrf^Hptos. 


77 


I 


TllMe  are  the  only  passages  I  can  discover,  to  which  the 
mylholopcal  notion  scenis  np]>licahte;  and  1  think  it  may 
lie  safely  asserted  that,  if  we  had  the  word  no  where  else, 
tliesc  would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  establish,  or  even 
suggest,  such  an  inteqiretation.  We  shall  soon  find  that 
we  mujit  give  the  title  a  much  humbler  meaning.  Before 
going  further,  I  will  refer  to  the  interpretations  offered 
by  Damm'*.  He  says  it  is  honoris  vocabulum^  and  that 
heroes  were  to  men  much  as  0eoi  to  Sainovei.  This  analogy 
of  ratios  comes,  in  fact,  from  Eustathius,  whose  words  I 
transcribe.  '^''Wfjwas  »)  TraXuia  troibta  yevm  rt  deiov  etvai 
oofa^Ci,  fxtaov  Oewv  (cat  avOpwirtuv.  Kat  to  fj.ev  Oeiov  ^uXoy 
ci*  0eoi/t  ciatpel  Kal  caitxova^.  .  .  .  toi/?  oe  dvOptairov^  elfv  re 
^pwa%  Koi  eh  avro  tovto  avBfHOTrov^.  Kat  wo^efitjfiei'at 
ftev  (fjriffi  Beats  Ca'tfiova^,  av9pwTrov^  de  tipoxTtv,  ov^  Kal  ck 
Oe'tov  Kat  dvOpisitrivov  tm/uiaTtK  (pvvai  Xeyovtrt.  Ato  kuI 
*Ho"*o3ot  rifit6€ov^  avTous  \eyet.  This,  as  I  observed  before, 
belongs  to  an  ago  later  than  that  of  the  Homeric  poems. 
The  heroes,  says  Damm,  were  usually  of  divine  blood,  but 
tlie  principal  M-arriors  got  the  name  also.  "  In  Homero 
autem  omncs  fortes  bcllatores  et  viri,  si  sunt  iUustres  natalibus, 
dicuntur  heroes.'^  He  makes  apd,  prayer  or  imprecation, 
the  theme,  and  places  i^ftwi  between  the  words  dpeTtj,  tipuxroK^ 
mmi  so  on,  and  ec-^dpa-  He  also  suggests  that  it  may  be 
derived  from  one  of  the  following  words ;  epa^  the  earth ; 
tpmfiX  «^p  i  ifjoo*-  Some  of  these  he  »eems  to  me  to  have 
taken  from  the  scholiasts  on  the  passage  of  Hesiod.  Proclus 
says  '"""iiCTTre/)  to  aXXa  y^vr^  airo  Ttf^  Trepl  avra  v\^  exa- 
XcffTif,  "^^viTovv  Kai  apyvpouv,  oifTot  nai  tovto  otto  t^  y^^j 
av  riptiHKOP.  Epa  yap  >}  y^i^  ta*  *tp'<*  """o  \tonaTa'  Trpoet- 
ptfKe  ie  oTi   6  Zci/y  cKcXevaev  "'H^iCTTov, 

irepiKXvTor  otti  Ta^iara 
yalav  vc€t  (jtvpetv. 
referring  to  the  fioth  hne  of  the''E^a  icai  riticpai.     Tzctzes 
says  as  follows ;    "^''HjOoitv  Xeyovrat  ti  tttro  Trjv  «/>oy,  tjyovv  t^ 
7^,  KaTO.   ctdXcKToV  €c.    ff^    vdv  avdpwirnt   t/pws  av  XeyOelri, 


■•Achol.  Hn.'e.  K..ril.  IjA. 


»  Ad  IL  A.  p.  17— IS,  M- 


19 


On  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  "^iXput^. 


H  airo  TOW  aipoi'  o'l  \^ir)^ai  yoip  tiZv  ayaStvv  avOftwirtvi/ 
cta^uyeitrai  (rm/iaTcui/  xaff  'EXXi/va?,  to¥  at  pa  irepiiroXoutrtUt 
ripoptixTt  TO.  T^0€,  *H  rxTTO  T^v  '  ApeTij^,  ws  (firitrtv  "O^^vs' 
(Aid.  63.) 

MijTe^  5'  ^piutov  '  ApfTtjv  awa-r^pOe  itXi/oin-cs-. 
H  OTTO  Tf/y  e^KKretw  /caJ  fiifeinv  twv  Oioov'  Xtjpovtji  yop  *t« 
01  Oto't  BvrjTai^  yvvat^t  txtyvvntvot^  jcat  avvpaai  0eai,  eTroiowi' 
Tu  Tofv  ijpt^mv  y^vot.  Damm  also  suggests  that  the  Latin 
hentSy  and  the  German  Aerr,  come  from  the  same  root :  I 
am  told  that  the  real  root  exists  in  the  Sanscrit  tturas. 

Whatever  the  etymology  of  the  word  may  lie,  I  think 
I  shall  shew  that  even  the  nioit  extentiive  interpretation  here 
given  to  it  is  too  eonfined. 

Wachsmuth  says  that  the  hero  is  every  one  who  in  any- 
way stands  out  from  the  mass,  as,  for  instance,  even  a 
herald  "*.  Even  this  de|>ends  upon  what  the  mass  is.  Is 
it  the  mass  of  the  army  before  Troy  ?  or  the  mass  of  man- 
kind? in  the  latter  case,  every  one  mentioned  might  be  a 
hero ;  for  he  probably  would  be  mentioned  for  something 
remarkable  in  him,  something  worth  D)entioning. 

The  persons  who  are  called  heroes  in  Homer  comprehend 
the  following  mixture.  Laomedon '",  Alcathous  the  son  in 
law  of  Anchises'",  Eurypylus  the  leader  of  the  Cetians'% 
Adrestus**  the  commander  of  the  Trojan  auxiliaries  from 
Adrestia,  Agastrophus"  the  son  of  Pa-on,  Menoetius"'  the 
father  of  Patruclus,  Peneleos  **  the  leader  of  the  Rceoti, 
Cebriones**  the  charioteer  of  Hector,  Deiphobus**,  Laertes", 
Machaon*^,  Helenus*,  Demodocus'^  the  bard  at  the  court 
of  Ithaca,  Merioncs*",  Agamemnon",  Protesilaus*',  Pirous** 
the  leader  of  the  Thracians,  Menelaus**,  ^-Eneas*,  Sthenelus'*, 
Leitus"  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  Bceotians,  Diomcdes", 
Odysseus'*,    Eurypylus*"  the  commander  of  the  troops  from 


>«  Ilellm.  All.  1.  Tb.  i.  Ablfa.  §  16. 

'»  n.  nil.  4«3l  '•  II.  xin.  AX. 

••  IL  VI.  »a.  »  II.  SI.  339. 

«  II.  XIII.  93.  ••  n.  XVI.  781. 

»  od.  1. 188.  «  n.  IV.  ato. 

•  Od.  VIII.  481  «  IK  xxiii.  DM. 

■*  II.  II.  ;nH.  ■  n.  II.  B44. 

•  II,  r.  »»R,  »  11.  V.  3X7. 
»  IL  K.  lU  ■  IL  XI.  40. 


>*  Od.  xt.  AM. 

»  n.  XI.  77R. 

*■  IL  xxit.  39R. 

*•  n.  XIII.  SSS. 

»'  IL  I.  102. 

»•  n.  III.  377. 

"  a  VI.  35.  ' 

••  n.'xi.6t9.  II.  7W. 


the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  ''VlpttK. 

Onncniils,  Asius"  who  leads  one  of  the  five  parties  aj^ainat 
the  walls  of  the  Greeks,  Idoraeneus**,  Achilles *\  Automu- 
don"  his  charioteer,  Pisistratus"*  son  of  Nestor,  Telemachus'", 
AlcinouB*'  king  of  the  Pliueaciaiis,  Echeiieus**  a  Ph»acimi 
yipav,  Phidou^"  the  king  of  the  Thesprotians,  Mulius '** 
the  herald  from  Dulichiuui  and  attendant  uf  Amphinonms, 
Alilherses"  and  .Egyptius*^  speakers  in  the  agora  of  the  Itlia- 
cans,  Phiedimus'"'  king  of  the  Sidonians.  These  are  neurly 
all  who  are  mentioned  hjf  name.  It  is  true  lliat  all  these 
are  persons  of  considerable  distinction;  but  those  who  were 
mentioned  by  name  could  not  hut  be  of  souie  distinction. 
I  think  we  shall  suon  see  that  the  distinction,  if  any,  which 
entitled  a  man  to  the  appellation,  must  have  l)een  a  very 
idight  one. 

But   I   will,  In  the  first  place,  admit  that  there  are  some 
instances  in  which  it  might  be  contended  that  the  word  is  used 
I  an  intentional  appellation  of  honour. 

Nestor  exhorts  the  warriors 

Q  ^iXcM,  ijpwfi  Aaraoi,  Oefftmovre^  A^j/w.     TI.  vi.  fi7. 
Ajax  in  another  place  uses  the  same  words  ".     Zeus  is  said  to 
make  Agamemnon 

€KTrp€-7re  ec  iroXXoIo"!  xal  e^oj^oy  Tjpwe^raiv,  II.  II.  MS* 
There  arc  other  instances  in  which  the  excelling  above  heroes 
might  he  said  to  be  put  as  a  sort  of  «  fortiori  case**.  Dulon 
calls  Odysseus  hcro^,  not  knowing  him;  it  may  be  said  that 
this  was  in  deprecation.  When  Apollo  is  inciting  j^ncas  to 
fight  Achilles,  he  says 

if^aiS,  aXX  ayCi  xal  <jv  deott  ai€iyeveTri<rtv 

ev^o'  Kol  oe  ae  <paat  Aioy  Kovpt)^  Atppo^irtpi 

tKyeya^ievy  (cetfoy  oe  j^epe'wvo^  ck  Beou  early.  0<l.  XIV.  97". 
But,  to  pursue  the  same  kind  of  argument  as  before,  all  these 
passages  are  also  consistent  with  the  interpretation  of  the  word 


*'  IL  XII.  U£. 

**  n.  xiiv.  47J. 

"Od.  VI.  ao3. 

»•  Od.xvin.4aa. 
'CM.  IT.  617. 


«  I1.XM1.  384. 
"  Od.  IV.  41ft. 
^  Od.  xuMi. 
»  Od.  n.  157- 
"  11.  XV.  73X 


«  11.  xxiii.  834. 
«  Od.  XIV.  S12. 
"  Od.  XIV,  :il7. 
«  Od.  II.  I."*. 


xfLii.  579-     axxiii.  ftifi.     IL  xviii.  A«.  437'    Od.  U'.  3«B. 
•■  n.  X.  416. 

"  To  (hue  might  be  added  the  i'lth  and  (Ulihlinw  of  theWih  hookof  tlic<Wy«»eri 
twt  there  appctn  to  m«  no  doubt  ih»i  ihc  firft  '201  line*  of  that  Iwjofc  art  »parkim. 


80  On  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  'Hpuw. 

in  a  humbler  and  commoner  sense;  so  that  from  these  akme 
we  should  not  have  derived  the  notion  that  it  was  an 
epithet  of  distinction.  In  the  passages  which  I  shall  now 
cite,  the  application  seems  much  more  indiscriminate.  One 
or  two  of  them,  taken  alone,  might  be  strained  to  a  more 
confined  sense;  but  I  think,  when  viewed  together,  they 
make  strongly  against  the  notion  that  the  term  implied 
much  distinction,  at  any  rate  in  the  Iliad.  Asius,  the 
Trojan  ally,  says 

■    -— ■  ov  yap  6'ycii^  €<pafiiiv  upwa^  Ayaiouv 
irvj^aetv  ijfieTepop  ye  ficvo^  koI  ^upa^  aaTrroi^— 

II.  XII.  16:5. 
where  he  seems  to  speak  of  the  Greeks  simply.     So  Menelaus 
says  to  the  Trojans, 

-         *       •  »  t  r 

yvv  auT  er  vrivatv  fieveaivcTe  irovTowopourtv 

TTvp  oXoov  ^ciXeetVf  Kreivat  o   ^pwas  ^^aiovs*.    II.  xiii.  628. 

So  Zeus  says  to  Apollo, 

oXXa  <rv  y  ev  '^^eipetrtrt  Xa/3*  atyica  Ouffa-avoetrtrav, 
Tiji'  /LiixX*  etrtaa'eiwv,  <po^€tv  ^ptnas  'Ayatoi/^ . 

II.  XV.  229. 

Accordingly  Apollo  tells  Hector, 

rpey^ti}  3'  ^pwas  'Ap^acows.     II.  xv.  26l. 

Again, 

Tpawiv  o  eXirero  Bu/jlos  evl  (TTijBedaiv  iKOCTTov 

vjja^  evfTrprjaetir,  KTeveeiv  ff  ^pwat  'At^cuoi/s.     II.  xv.  701. 

When  Zeus  is  exerting  himself  in  behalf  of  the  Trojans,  and 

Posidaon  in  behalf  of  the  Greeks,  the  expression  is, 

Tw  o  afxd>i9  (bpoveoyre  ovw  Kpovov  vte  Kparcuto 
av^pdtrtv  rjptoeaai  Ter^vj^crov  oX'yea  Xvypd. 

II.  XIII.  345. 
In  all  these  passages  the  word  might  be  taken  for  the 
warriors  generally :  we  can  scarcely  believe  it  to  be  confined 
to  the  chiefs,  or  the  owners  of  chariots,  an  opinion  I  at  one 
time  entertained:  at  any  rate  they  suggest  no  such  notion. 
But  there  are  three  passages  in  the  Iliad,  in  which  the 
heroes  are  spoken  of  as  forming  the  o-ri^es,  the  ranks. 
AVhen  Apollo  carries  off  iEneas  from  Achilles, 

xoXXas  oe  orl^as  t^^howi',  iroWa^  oe  Kal  "tTrtraiv 

'Aive'ta^  virepakTOf  Otou  avo  x^*P^  opovoas-     H*  xx.  326. 


Oh  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  ''Hpun' 


81 


Athene^fl  spear  too  h  8aid  to  be  that 


-Tflj  dafivijai  (TTf^a? 


diwpbji 


tMiv 


'Hptouy.  II.  V.  7*kC.  vm.  sgo. 
H'hich  words  are  also  foLinc]  in  the  Odyssey,  i.  100.  Here 
it  canaot  be  argued  either  th«t  o-t/^^cs  j'lpwtov  means  a  select 
body,  or  signifies  ranks  in  oi  over  which  were  chiefs  called 
^pw€^-  Let  U8  see  the  othei*  uses  of  the  sanie  word,  espe^ 
cially  with  a  genitive. 

The  lion,  pressed  by  the  avlpt^  BrjpevraU  i»  dej^rihed 
a«  *oT(i^as-  avdpwv  veiptjri'^tvi'.  Compare  this  with  the  de- 
scription of  Hector,  in  another  passage. 

rat  p'  eOeXcv  pif^at  o-rix'^^  dvcptofy  iretptiTt^wi , 

rj  o*i  ir\ti<rTov  OfitXov  opa  /tai  rei/^e'  apurru' 

aXX   ovo  ft)9  cuvuTo  prj^atj  ixaXa  irep  fitvea'tvujv. 

la-j^ov  yap  Trvpytjiiov  aptjpores  .... 

wf  Aai'aot  TpoMK  fievov  vfAtrcoov  ovo    e<pef3ovTo. 

II.  XV.  615. 
Observe  also  the  following  line : 

pri]^€tfievo^  Au¥aiv  vvKiia^  arenas  affvuTTtimv. 

II.  XIII.  6'80. 

The  main  bulk  of  the  host  standing  alwut  Machaon  is 
thus  described : 

(tfidit  ce  fi.iv  KpaTcpai  ©"ti^cs  acTTricrTaan' 

XatuVf  oil  o't  cTrofTo  Tpt-y^ifi  tf  ifl-xo/ioTtwo,    II.  iv.  201  ; 
and    there   is   a  similar   passage  with  regard  to  Pandoras^. 
Soon  after, 

*^Totf>pa  6  ewi  'Vpiumv  o-TiYCT  ^XvOov  CKT'TrnTTawv, 
which  occurs  in  another  place"'.  The  whole  hulk  of  the  two 
JiostJ,  in  a  very  picturesque  passage,  where  they  arc  halted 
listen  to  Hector's  challenge,  is  called  oTx^ey  irt^Kcai"^,  and 
igain  ^ariy^ts  'A\iuwv  t€  'Vpwwv  re.  This  is  quite  enough 
to  establish,  what  perhaps  1  might  have  assumed  without 
proof,  that  i^ptLwv  ari^t^:  are  not  a  select  body,  and  that 
the  iipwev  make  up  the  o-Ti^tct  such  being  the  f(»rce  of  the 
genitive  in  every  instance  adduced.  I  do  not  see  therefore 
bow  we  can  stop  short  of  inferring  that  the  ijpa>H  through- 
out the  Iliafi,  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  av^pe^ 
wTietcraU  the  great  body  and  bulk  of  the  host. 


-*  fL  xtt^il. 

'■■»  IL  IV.  91. 

M  tl.  IT.  391. 

«  a  XI,  412. 

**  n.  VII.  fi«. 

«  a  Tit.  a). 

Vol..  11.  Xo.  -*. 

I. 

8S 


Oh  the  Hrnneric  f««  of  the  word  "Hpm. 


In  the  great  assembly  convoked  in  the  nineteenth  book 
of  the  Iliad,   those  wlio  arc  sunjinoned  are  the  ijptufs^ 

eil  ayop^v  KoKeaa^  ^joutar  'Aj^oioi^y,   v.  3+; 
and  again, 

loaev  0   rjpata^    Aj^atowj.     v.  41. 
Now  the  whole  host  seem  to  liave  come  together — 

Trai/Tcs  aoWia9t}<Tav  A^atot,   v.  54^— ~ 
even  those  who  belonged  merely    to  the  naval  force,  and  to 
the  administration    of   the    stores'^,      Agamemnon    uddrcsscs^ 
this  assembly  as  ijpMf^  Aarao**^. 

There  is  no  reason  therefore  to  believe  that  those  who 
attended  the  dyopn  were  in  any  way  a  select  party,  or  caste, 
in  the  Iliads  though  they  seem  to  be  ideiiticd  with  the 
vpeucv'  The  whole  Xaos"^"  is  convoked  in  the  first  book. 
Assuming  this,  we  shall  find  that  the  lypwcv  comprehended 
ranks  of  wliich  the  distinctions  were  to  a  certain  degree  re- 
cognized. Before  the  ayopt^  in  the  second  book  tliere  is  a 
select  council — 

/3ouXr;  <)€  irpan'ov  ^^foBifituv  tj^e  yepovrtov,     v.  3S. 
The  breaking  up  uf  this  meeting,  and  the  summoning  of  the 
general  assembly,  are  thus  described  : 

(DC  apa  tpaivt]aa%  ^ovXtfK  e^  ^PX^  veecrdat- 
oi  o  (TravedTJjcrayj  ireiOovTo  re  irot/ievt  \awv, 
(TKijiTToi/^o*  /3«(Ti\>;€9'  iiretToevovTo  oe  Xoof.  v.  84. 
These  Xuoi  ure  afterwards  called  by  Agamemnon,  as  i» 
the  other  instance,  ^''  ijptoe^  ^aiiaoi  This  as<iembly  also  is  a 
mixed  one:  the  heralds  marshal  them,  and  they  come  to* 
gcther,  not  to  discu-^s,  but  to  listen  to  their  betters. 

evvea  ce  ertpea^ 

KflpVKV-i  /iJooOM'Tes  CptlTVOVy  UVOT  QVT^? 

o^oitxT  ,  aKova€iay  6^  ^lOTpt'tpGwv  patnXtjwv^     v.  98. 
And  we  have  a  distinction  drawn  between  the  **/3aa-(X$a  koI 
cfoj(OP  avdpa  and  the  '^''^^m-ov  avSpa. 

It  may  perhaps  strike  some  one,  that  this  is  the  common 
j3ot/X>;  and  ^KKXtjala  of  later  Greece ;  and  no  doubt  it  repre- 
sents the  state  of  things  in  which  snch  assemblies  sometimes 
originate :  however  they  arc  not  here  two  deliberative  bodies, 


»♦  See  rr.  i2—4h. 

"  II.  ti.  Iin. 


"  IK  XIX  7Bl 

»  a  11. 188. 


••  II.  I.  M. 
<»  II.  M.  IftfL 


iM  Homeric  use  of  the  Kwrrf  "H/xits. 


B3 


l>ut  first  a  special  meeting  of  chiefs  aiding  the  general  with 
their  counsel,  unci  then  a  full  meeting  of  the  whole  host,  to 
heur  the  result  and   receive  communicatians. 

The  ayopti  in  the  first  book  has  more  the  appearance 
of  a  deliberative  assembly :  we  may  perceive  however  that 
they  are  summoned  to  try  if  there  is  any  one  in  the  whole 
army  who  lias  had  intelligence  either  by  revelation  or 
dream  ^. 

In  the  Odyssey  too,  those  who  arc  called  to  the  ayoptj 
in  Ithaca,  are  termed  ^pwey".  **  Alithcrscs  and  "^^Egyptius, 
who  speak  there,  are  tailed  heroes.  But  in  the  Odyssey 
I  think  I  diset>ver  a  ratlier  more  aristmTalical  character  in 
the  ayopti-  It  is  evidently  deliberative;  yet  its  princi|)al 
buxtneiis  aeems  tu  be  lo  riTt'ive  intvUigeiice.  Thus  ^gyp- 
tius,  after  saying  that  tliere  has  lieen  no  ayop*)  since  the 
departure  of  Odysseus,  goes  on: 

vvv  ce  TK  too  tiyeipe*   nva  yjifuo  Torrov  ocet 

rje  tretuf  aycfMoy,  »;  ot  irpuypvea-repoi  eiatv ; 

ij€  Tiv  ayyikirjv  OTpa-rov  vkKv^v  e^^o/uefoto, 

ijc  ^  ritiiv  aa<pa  eivoi,  ore  wporepo^  ye  •irvdoiTO ; 

^c  Ti  crifttov  aXXo  fn<bav<jK^Tai  fjo  ayopevti ;      n*  28. 

Telcmachufi  says  that  they  are  of  the  same  rank,  or  at  any 
rate  comprehend  some  of  the  f»ame  rank,  asi  the  suitors ;  for 
he  calls  the  suitors 

Twy  avdpwv  ipiXot  vfes,  ot  efface  y  e'tolv  apttTTOi.      II-  61. 
The  suitors  are  opposed  by  Mentor,  in  the  assembly,   uWtp 
i^lUft'*^  still   a  part  of  the  assembly.      Telemnchus  asks  this 
assembly  to  supply  him  with  a  ship  and  crew  "*. 

In  the  Pha'acian  city,  Odysseus  admires 

avTwy  ijpwwv  ayapas  koI  Telyea  fiaxpOf      Od.  vii.  4-i, 
if  the  assembly  and  the  bulwarks  belonged  to  the  heroes 
culiarly. 

Echeneus,  a  Phaeacian  yepwv,  who  feasts  with  king  Alci- 
nous,  is  called  hero  '^. 

If  it  be  true,  that  the  jjpme^  and  the  afisemblies  in  Ithaca 
Me  more  select  than  those  in  the  Iliad,  there  would  in  reality 


"  a  I.  62.  "  Od.  I.  272. 

'•  fW.  II.  157.    SeealwOd.  xxiv.i.jl. 
"  Od.  II.  M.  T'  <M.  n.JSa. 

»  Od.  vu.  I5.V     Od.xi.  342. 


'■*  Od.  It.  312. 


84  On  the  Homeric  uae  of  tfie  word  'H/ws* 

be  no  inconsistency.  If  there  was  a  predominant  tribe,  or 
caste,  their  predominance  would  appear  at  home,  amid  the 
mixed  population.  But  when  the  armed  force,  conaisting 
principally  or  entirely  of  the  predominant  race,  was  abroad 
and  on  service,  the  distinction  would  of  course  disappear, 
because  there  would  no  longer  be  a  mixture.  The  prin- 
cipal difficulty  which  meets  one,  in  attempting  to  establish 
the  distinction,  is  that  there  are  few  or  no  traces  of  the 
subordinate  caste.  Wachsmuth  has  attempted^  to  point 
out  some  distinctions  of  rank,  and  successfully ;  but  he 
makes  out,  I  think,  nothing  below  the  ^ij/ias,  exciting  of 
course  servants  or  slaves.  Now  the  ^fifios,  as  I  think  I 
have  shewn,  comprehended  the  ^jcwes,  and  constituted  the 
ayoptfi  and  indeed  I  do  not  feel  satis6ed  that  Sijttos  in 
Homer  signifies  plebu:  it  seems  rather  to  mean  populus,  in 
the  old  Roman  sense,  which  Vico™,  I  believe,  first  pointed 
out;  a  view  which  Niebuhr  '"has  completely  confirmed. 

There  are  numerous  passages  in  which  the  word  ^pws  is 
applied,  without  meaning,  no  far  as  I  can  discover,  any  thing 
more  than  a  common  title,  like  gentleman  in  our  language; 
or  at  least  in  which  nothing  can  be  supposed  to  be  desig- 
nated emphatically  by  it.  Such  is  the  passage  where  Me- 
nelaus  repulses  Adrestus,  who  is  begging  for  his  life. 
-  o  o  avo  edcv  wtraTo  X'stpi 

^pb>  ^ASptJOTOV.       II.  VJ.  63. 

Such  is  that  where  Alcinous  desires  Telemachus  to  attend 
to  his  words, 

o<ppa  Kat  oAX^ 

eiTTi;;  ^paxovt  ore  Kev  (rois  cf  fieyapottrtv 
ioipvri   trapa   a^  t   oXd^^n*,    koX    aoiat  tckoto'iv. 

Od.  VIII.  241. 
where    >ipwt^    are     sinijily    those     on     visiting    terms     with 
Telemachus.     It  is   assumed  that  those  to  whom   he  would 
tell   it  would   be   i/^ey,   but   the  word  is  not  used  for   the 
purpose  of  pointing  this  out.      I    could  cite  a   great   many 


^  Hdl«n.  Ah.  I.  Th.  i.  Abth.  §  l«.     Beil.  l!.  w  i.  Th.  i.  Abth. 
'*  S«e  Principi  di  Srioiu  Nuov*.  Ed.  Milan.  \Wl,  Vol.  i.  p.  77.  Vol.  ii.  p.  97, 
197.^4.    rcmpuralMi  Vol.  II.  p.  12S,  list.  171. 
Riinuii  llMtorv  i.  pp.  IIJ— IJtV 


Qn  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  "H^j. 


85 


more  iiibtances  of  this  kind**;  but  I  will  merely  incntiun  « 
passage  or  two  wliere  llie  phrase  avrap  oy  ifpoi^  occurs, 
meaning  merely  he. 

Diomedes  hits  yEneas  with  a  stone, 

avTup  oy    tfpws 

etrnj  yvv^  eptirmv.      II.   v.   ."J08. 
StheneluR,  having  driven  off  the  horses  of  ^^ncos,  returns 
to  Diomedes : 

avrap  oy    ^jtxw  (i.  e.  Sthenelus) 

<uv  (Tnriui'  tTTipay  K.  T.  X.     11.  V.  Si!". 
In  tile  Dolouia,  the  parly  go  to  the  tent  of  Diomedes : 

auTap  oy    ijptot 

«^^.  II.  X.    I5i. 

The  Trojans  attack  Odysseus: 

—  —■  ■  avTUp  oy    rjpuK 
aiaawv  tp    c^'VYCf  afxvveTo  vrfKte^'  tjnap-      II.  XI.   483, 
Deiphohus  receives  in   his  shield  the  «pear  nf  Meriones, 
which  is  hruken, 

-  avrap  oy     »;/Jwy 


wJ^  CTapwv  ciy  gOv(K  e^a^ero.     II.  xiii.   I64. 
Agamcmuuu  gives  Meriones  a  sjjear, 

■  avrap  oy    ripw9 

TaXOvfiup  Kijpvia  ^i^v  treptKaWes  ae6Xoy.   \\.  xxiif,  89C. 
I  thinic  this  phrase  does  not  occur  in  the  Odyssey.     But 
it  »eecns  impossible  that  the  word  so  used  should  mean  more 
than  h^j  that  peraon^  chat  soldier. 

The  next  enquiry  which  suggei^ts  itself,  is  whether  the 
title  ift  confined  to  a  particular  tribe  or  nation  of  Greeks. 
Il  certainly  is  not  so  confinetl.  1  have  already  cited  several 
cases  in  which  the  phrase  t}pwe%  'A-^atoi  occurs"'.  We  find 
the  same  term  applied  to  the  ^avaol.  In  one  pa^isage  tliey 
are  put  in  apjxiftition  with  the  'Ap^ciw". 

NeffTup  a'  'Apydoiatv  eKfKXero   fiaxpov  avtra^* 
Q  tpiXoif    tjptoe^   i^avaoif  0fpa7ravT€%    Apt]oi, 

II.  XIX.  78.  11.  256.  XV.  733.  II.  110, 

**  II.  XI.  330.  II.  IV.  200,  where  Muhaon  is  calleO  heni;  he  was  called  0t^a 
«t  line  174.  n.  III.  377-  l\.  vi.  U.  It.  vi.  61.  II.  xiii.  3K4.  II.  xiii.  &7A.  IL 
JIII.7M.     Od.  IV.  21.     Od.  1V.303.    (M.  vii.  303.    Od.  x.  ftlfl. 

"  n.  XII.  fift.  II.  XIII.  fi3«.  II.  xr.  23(1,  ili\,  702,  n.  xiK.  M,  4t.  04  I. 
373.     IL  XV.  2111.     Od.  XXIV.  KB,  probkhlv  apurioiu. 

•»  ri.  Vi.  fifi. 


86 


Oti  the  Homeric  ti^e  of  the  word  "Hpiot. 


1  mention  this  indiscriminateuess  in  the  application,  be- 
cause, although  in  the  two  poems  the  general  host  of  the 
Greeks  is  called  indifTerently  by  the  words  'Ayatot,  'Apy^iot, 
Aacaoi,  yet  the  last  two  names  are  never  ap])Iied  to  the  people 
of  Ithaca^  or  the  predominant  caste  there,  if  such  there  be, 
while  'A^atoj  is  very  often  so  applied.  It  is,  I  thinks,  highly 
probable  that  the  \\-^cuoi  were  a  predominant  race  in  Ithaca 
in  the  Homeric  times. 

But  in  fact,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  many  instances,  the 
title  ^puK  is  not  confined  to  the  allied  Greeks.  We  have  seen 
it  applied  to  the  PhieaciaiiH,  a  [>eople  who  stand  in  a  strange 
and  scarcely  intelligible  relation  to  the  Greeks  of  the  Homeric 
times.  Their  royal  family"  is  the  third  generation  frura  the 
Gigantes;  and  Alcinuus  says  that  the  gixls  sliewed  themselves 
to  them,  not  disguised  in  human  form,  but  in  their  own  pro- 
per shapes, 

^-^— eTrei  <r<purtv  eyyvOev  ciVei*, 

mtrvfp  Ku«Xtt)7r«9  tc  koa  aypta  <f>v\Q  ViyavTwv. 

Od.  VII.  205. 
Th^r  ships  carried  Rhadamanthus  on  his  visitation  to  Tityus, 
raiiftoi'  v'tov'^ ;  these  ships  arc  instinct  with  motion  and  know- 
ledge '^;  and  the  country  and  city  seem  a  «)rt  of  fairy  land. 

Adrestus,  the  commander  of  the  Trojan  allies  from  "' Adres- 
tia,  Apsesus,  Pityia,  and  mount  Teria,  is  called  a  hero  " ;  and 
the  same  word  is  applie<l  to  a'^  Cetian  (probably  a  Mysian, 
see  schol.  on  Od.  xi.  .n20,  and  Strabo,  xiii.  015,  tJ.),  to  Trojans 
in  many  instances,  to  a  Thraciao,  to  a  Thesprotian,  and  to  a 
Sidonian.  I  before  mentioned  that  the  Lapilhte  are  called 
heroes**.  One  cannot  therefiire  be  surprised  that  Greeks  who 
were  not  on  the  Trojan  expedition,  such  as  Telemachus" 
and  Pisislratun",  tiltould  be  called  so. 

Before  I  mention  the  hypothesis  which  I  propose  to 
RUggesl,  I  will  recapitulate  the  conditions  which  it  ought  to 
Mitisfv,  a&  well  as  I  ctm  collect  them  from  the  instances  of 
the  t»se  of  the  word  already  brought  forward-  I  will  first 
observe  that,  in  weighing  any  conjecture  as  to  the  origin  of 


■*  Od.  VII.  w.  1^^. 
•  a  II.  BS8. 

M  Od.  III.  41& 


•«  Od.  vu.  S»4. 

"  n.  vi.«j. 


■  Od.  VIII.  US. 
•>  Od.  IV.  31. 


On  the  Homaric  vne  of  the  word  "Mpwy. 


H7 


the  word,  we  arc  to  recollect  that  it  is  a  substatiiive ;  and 
therefore  we  cannot  treat  it  like  such  words  as  fxeyaOvfiot  or 
even  'fjr7roKonv(T'ri^Sj  of  which  it  may  he  said  that,  from  being 
difttingui.shing  epithets  at  first,  they  came  into  common  use, 
to  amplify  the  diction  and  give  it  a  dignified  tone.  Wc  never 
could  have  had  avrap  oye  fieyaBvfio^t  or  avrdp  oy  itnroKopvtr- 
T^s,  as  wc  have  ai/Va/j  oy  ijpun; 

1.  The  title  ought  to  be  common  to  the  whole  \a6^  at 
Troy,  all  the  avSpev  dawuTTai,  whether  ^avaol  or  'A-^atol; 
I  think  we  may  also  add  'Apyeiot,  on  the  strength  of  the 
possage  cited  in  note  82. 

S.  It  ought  to  be  applicable  to  other  fighters,  or,  in 
some  character  or  other,  to  the  Lapithse,  and  to  the  Trojans 
generally. 

3.  It  ought  to  be  applicable  to  men  of  consequence, 
who  were  not  Greeks  or  Trojans,  as  kings,  princes,  people 
of  the  ruling  rank,  where  such  a  rank  can  he  found.  It  ought 
tQ  include,  if  not  all  the  people  of  Ithaca,  the  lA^aioi  or 
ruling  rank   there.      Rank  is  a  safer  wor<l  than  caste. 

4.  I  think  we  may  add  that,  however  wide  its  ap- 
plication, the  word  is  never  applied  when  the  general  effect 
of  the  sentiment  is  contempt. 

5.  The  hypothesis  must  be  cx)mpatible  with  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  word  afterwardH  disappeared  from  common 
use,  and  became  mythological. 

Had  1  succeeded  in  extracting  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  word  from  the  Homeric  poems,  I  might,  as  I  suggested 
at  the  Iwginning,  have  applietl  it  to  our  speculations  on  the 
state  of  society,  and  the  relations,  of  the  different  Greek 
tribes  in  the  Homeric  age.  Having  failed  to  do  this,  I  can 
only  have  recourse  to  the  inverse  method.  I  liave  already 
illuiitrated  it,  as  far  as  I  can,  from  the  manners  and  habits  of 
the  Homeric  time.  Let  us  now  take  a  very  short  view  of 
the  state  in  which  the  Greeks  thea  8tood>  as  to  their  con- 
stituent national  families. 

We  know  of  nothing  earlier  in  Greece  than  the  preva- 
lence of  the  Pclasgians,  unless  indeed  we  are  to  except  the 
UpwreXrji^ot  of  Aristotle,  mentioned  by  the  scholiast  upon  Aris- 
tophanes*.    Among  the  Homeric  Greeks,  I  assume  the  name 

«  Nub.  S«7.  (Konttr.) 


88 


0»  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  ''Ufjwi- 


'Apyetot  to  be  due  to  the  oW  PelaBginn  race;  for  "'A/r/os" 
in  Arf^olifi  had  a  citadel  LariRsa^  which  h  knowii  to  be  a 
Pela<igian  name.  The  Pelasgian  Argos  in  Homer**  is  a  part 
of  Thessaly.  "Apyw,  according  to  Strabo,  signifies  a  phhi 
in  later  writers,  ?ra/»t  toT?  i'€WTepois'*^i  hut  he  says  that  the 
name  is  Ther^salian  or  Macedonian.  It  is  probably  Pelasgian, 
for  it  signified  the  plain  round  LariKsa  in  Thessaly  **•  In 
Pausanias"'  we  read  of  a  plain  called  "Apyoi  in  Arcadia, 
the  retreat  of  the  old  Pela^gian  race. 

The  next  period  is  that  of  the  colonists  from  beyond 
aeu,  when  the  '^trapTot  aucpc^  (a  Lelegic  tribe,  I  believe) 
founded  Sparta**,  settled  in  Ikcotia'*,  and  when  other  tribes 
of  Leieges  and  Cares  settled  all  along  the  coasts.  One 
set  of  immigrants  often  overpowered  another,  of  which  there 
are  plentiful  traditions;  as,  in  the  case  of  the  Leleges,  we 
have  the  legend  of  the  ^waprot  avSpe^t  springing  from  the 
earth,  from  the  dragon's  teeth"";  of  the  Leleges  springing 
fW>m  the  earth  when  Deucalion  threw  the  stones  there'"',  and 
so  on.  Among  these  eolnnists  were  the  Danai,  from  £gYpt, 
if  we  follow  the  old  tradition. 

Then  wc  have  the  state  of  things  described  by  Thucy- 
dides  "* :  'E\Xi;i*o?  Of  Kai  rtoK  waUwu  avrou  ey  rn  ^Ouortdt 
iffj^vffaW&u',  Kat  €Tray otxev fjv  avrovs  eir  <o<pc\ei^  ey  t«s  aAAac 
iroXetr,  k.  t.  \.  Thucydides  attributes  to  this  the  use  of  the 
name  'EXXr^ws,  which  came  by  degrees  to  comprehend  all  the 
Greeks,  but  which  required  a  considerable  time  to  win  its 
way.  The  name  'A^^oioi  had  gained  an  earlier  preeminence, 
and   probably   retained   it   till  the  return  of  the    Heraclidie. 


«  .Stnbovitt.  370-  IX.  449.  **  IL  it.  681.    Smb.  ix.  431. 

*■  VIII.  371, 1,  where  M«  F.QftUih.  as  riled  by  Cuaitbon,  wnd  tec  farther  Kiuse, 
Hellu.  Vol.  I.  ch«p.  V.  p.  437.  not  (IM.) 

••  8tnbo  IX.  431.  "  Arcsd.  vm.  7-  §  \. 

••  Eimlmth.  n.  B.  fol.  SlU. 

»  Stnha  IX.  401.     S<ho\.  Eorip.  Pb<mi«.  fr74.  9(9.  (Beck.) 

■■■  The  niMuilng  of  the  serpent,  in  (his  wtd  other  trmdidoiw,  b  whinutcaUjr  caa- 
inraicd  upoo  b>  Vico,  P.  S.  X.  11.  p.  liH.  &.C.  PetfaApa  io  the  atorjr  of  t-'adttinx  It 
mcmiiA  mcrcljr  ifae  old  nohilitj  orcrpawem]  by  the  Phimiciatis.  The  feader  will 
recnllect  ihe  oifnv  .>i«.Di>^^  of  the  Athctiiiin  eitmUI.  See  ArtMpph.  l.yMRt.  7'tl'-  snd 
lltrod.  vtii.  41.  C<ocnpare  liwcher'R  nou  «n  Ilend.  i.  IM.  (not.  3£il)  Paiuwiuu 
cix^ectured  thai  Ericthoniti!)  mij^bt  btr  rcjireMnted  by  the  snake  Kvlptured  in  ihe  Psr- 
ihmuD,  which  wu  near  the  apcar  of  AibcQc  1.  34.  7- 

"t  He«:od.  t'ngm.  xi.  >••  i.  3. 


On  the  Homeric  use  of  the  tQord  ''Hpaiv- 


80 


The  'Aj^aioc  arc  mentioned  with  the  'Slvpfitlove^  and  ^FA- 
X^ji-ev"*  a»  the  soldiers  of  Achilles,  the  inhahitnnts  of  tJie 
Pelasgic  Ai^os,  of  Phthin,  IIclliis,  &c.  The  prevalence  of 
this  name"*  was  owing,  it  seems,  to  the  good  fortune  or  su- 
perior courage  of  the  hand  of  adventurers  who  beeame 
masters  of  Argos  and  Lacedsemon.  According  to  the  legend 
found  in  Pausanias '"*,  Archander  the  son  of  Achseus  (Hero- 
dotus"* makes  him  the  son  of  Phthius  and  grandson  of 
Achseue),  and  Architcles,  came  to  Argos  from  the  Phthiotis, 
and  married  rcsj)ectively  Scica  and  Automate  the  daughters 
of  Danaufi.  Archander  bad  a  »on  called  Metanastes.  The 
family  becAuic  so  powerful,  that  the  people  of  Argos  and 
Lacedsemon  received  the  name  of  'A-xaioi-  Pausanias  savs 
that  ^avaoi  was  then  a  name  confined  to  the  people  of 
Argos.  Straho  '"^  xays  that  Acha'us  himself  came  to  La- 
conia;  elsewhere'*  be  says  that  the  Acha;i  of  the  Phthiotis 
came  with  Pclops  to  the  Peloponnesus,  and  held  I^aconia. 
The  utory  is  also  told  in  Ap^Uodorus'^*.  These  geneajo- 
giea  arc  no  further  important,  than  as  shewing  the  early 
national  opinions  as  to  the  relations  of  the  diJPcrent  tribes. 
^Ap-)(av6pos  and  'Ayj^ixeXi;?*  of  course,  are  words  designating 
the  leaders  of  bands  of  adventurers,  such  as  those  spoken  of 
in  the  jmssage  of  Thucydidcs.  We  know  that  reXfn  was 
the  technical  name,  in  the  Homeric  times,  for  bands  of  sol- 
diem"".  The  legend  of  the  companions  of  Demaratus,  Eu- 
dieir  and  Eugrammus'",  who  brought  the  plastic  art  to 
Italy,  according  to  Pliny,  exhibits  much  such  another  deri- 
vation of  name.  The  word  Meravaarti^  also  explains  itself, 
as    Pausanias    perceived "".      Perhaps    AuTOfiart)    and   "^ata 


I 


"»  n.  1 1.  «H. 

I**  Aiace  the  prcMnt  Emsjt  «ru  uritim,  I  haVB  eoduvaured  10  explain  the  tiev 
her*  taken,  in  ui  utide  in  the  (Quarterly  Joumn]  of  Education,  VoL  1 1.  No.  v.  p.  R7. 

'•  »ii.  1.  §  3.  '"  n. !«.  '"  VIII.  883. 

»*  Till,  niift.  "•  p.  27.  ed.  Hejn. 

'»  11.  «i.  73ft.  xviii.  296.  Vit.  3li0,  if  the  line  be  genuine.  See  Wschsmuih 
HeL  Alt.  \\t\\.  U.  1(1 1.  T\\.  1.  Abth.  Arnolds  not«  on  Thucfd.  i.  M,  and  the  review 
of  it  in  the  4jtumerly  Journal  nf  Kducation.  No-  v  1 1 . 

■■*  Plin.  H.  N.  XXXV.  43.     SeeAlMt  Nlehuhr,  Ramftn  HixtoTy  t.  3lt9.  (cd.  X) 

"■  SI  rr-dMiimrs  «■»  probattijr  a  lemi  of  lepcoach  impowd  by  the  earlier  inhabiuinu. 
Achmca  uyk,  11.  ix.  fti?- 

>H ni^o^tai ,  Mt  f»:  )ia&^iiK»v  iv  ' Kfiytotfttv  Sfu^tf 
"At(>*'i^i|<,  ti«*tvui'  m^lftt)Ti>u  iifraida^nir. 

Vol.  n.  No.*.  M 


90 


Oh  the  Homerw  use  of  the  teord  "TlpiDv. 


may  Imve  somi;  ineaitiiig  also.  The  story  of  the  marriage 
may  or  may  not  be  true ;  yet,  no  doubt,  the  history  of  the 
times  of  the  Condottieri  would  furnish  analogies.  The  origin 
of  the  sovereignty  of  the  Sforzas  over  Milan  was  owing  to 
the  marriage  of  tlie  great  leader  of  the  free  companions,  Fran- 
cesco Sforza,  with  Bianca  Visconti,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
sixth  Iwok  of  Machiavelli's  Italia.  The  great  kingdom  of 
Argos,  over  which  the  Acha*i  presided,  seems  to  have  retained 
its  relations  with  the  tribes  of  the  North,  and  other  countries 
vithout  the  Isthmus.  Traces  of  this  perhaps  are  to  be  found 
in  the  legends  of  the  persecution  of  Hercules  by  Kurystheus, 
of  the  wars  of  Thebes,  and  of  an  Acrisius  king  of  Argos, 
who  arranged  the  constituency  of  the  Arnphiiyonic  Council. 
Wachsmuth  "^  conceives  that  this  last  mentione<l  tradition  can 
be  accounted  for  only  by  supposing  that  something  which 
took  place  after  the  return  of  tlie  Heraclidie  hnd  become 
mixed  up  with  the  more  ancient  mythology'".  But  it  may 
have  been  an  institution  controuled  by  the  nioniu'ch  of  the 
great  kingdom  of  Argos  in  the  South,  as  the  cx>n federation  of 
the  Rhine  was  by  Napoleon"*. 

This  brings  us  to  the  monarchy  of  the  Atridip.  T  con- 
jecture therefore  tliat  tjpw€i  may  be  the  uume  wJiich  desig- 
nated the  warriors  of  those  roving  bands,  whose  prevalence 
in  Greece  was  so  common^  according  to  Thiicydides,  and 
who  were  the  founders  of  the  kingdom  the  monarch  of 
which  headed  tlie  confederation  against  Troy.  It  may  ori- 
ginally have  been  confined  to  the  chiefs;  but  my  hypothesis 
is  that  it  ultimately  Iwlonged  to  every  member  of  the  liand. 
We  will  now  recur  to  the  five  conditions  proposed,  and  see 
whether  this  hypothesis  will  fall   in  with  them. 

Tlie  first  condition  agrees  with  it  well  enough ;  every 
body  admitted  into  the  ranks  on  a  military  expedition  would 
acquire  the  title. 

As  for  the  second  condition,  the  word,  in  the  mouths 
of  this  race,  might  easily  come  to  signify  a  soldier. 

The  third  condition  is  rather  less  manageable.  Vet,  in 
the  conflicts  and  struggles  which  gave  extension,  first  to  the 


'"  Stnibo  IX.  420.  *"  HcUen.  Alt  i.  Th.  I.  Abtb.  §  34. 

■'^  The  'Axawl,  M  is  remarked  in  p.  Sfl,  were  >1m  estsblbfatd  in  Iihaau 


i^^Homeric  vse  of  the  word    nptoi* 

Achipan,  and  then  to  the  Hellenic  name,  it  is  clear  that  the 
members  of  these  band»  must  have  learnt  to  consider  them- 
selves as  the  superior  and  predominant  caste.  And  the  aj>- 
pHcation  of  their  own  title  tu  luiy  one  whom  they  res|»ected, 
would  follow  naturally  enou;;;h.  In  Lyd^ateV  story  of 
Thel>es,  Amphiaraus  is  called  the  liisliup  Anipliiurax,  and  the 
warriors  aru  termed  knights;  and  one  can  easily  understand 
how  ballads  of  the  age  of  the  Crusaders  came  to  represeuC 
the  Saracen  warriors  as  knights,  and  how  the  Moors  were 
so  represented  iti  Spanish  ballads.  It  may  be  worth 
while  to  reniind  the  reader  of  a  passa^  in  Ivanlioe,  where 
■  leader  of  a  band  of  free  compaulous  gives  on  account 
of  the  marriages  of  the  tribe  of  Uenjamin "' :  "  How, 
long  since  in  Palestine,  a  deadly  feud  arose  between  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  and  the  rest  of  tl)c  IsraeUtisli  nation ; 
and  how-  they  cut  to  pieces  well  nigh  all  the  chivalry  of 
that  tribe;  and  how  they  swore  by  our  blessed  Laflv,  that 
they  would  not  pennit  those  who  remained  to  marry  in  their 
lineage ;  and  how  they  became  grieved  for  their  vow,  and  sent 
to  consult  his  holiness  the  Pope  how  they  might  be  absolved 
from  it;  and  how,  by  the  advice  of  the  Holy  Father,  the 
youth  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  carried  off  from  a  superb 
tournament  all  the  ladies  who  were  present,  and  thus  won 
ihcni  wives  without  the  consent  either  of  their  brides  or  their 
brides*  families."  There  is  less  difficulty  in  imderstanding 
iho  presence  of  the  tjpwe^  in  tlie  ayopij.  The  army  of  a  pre- 
dominant tribe  is,  in  early  times,  the  assembly:  in  fact  the 
array  is  the  assembly,  whether  at  home  or  abroad ;  and  when 
inferior  castes  arc  admittetl  lo  higher  pnliti<-al  privileges,  in 
the  early  history  of  nation;^,  it  is  almost  always,  by  their  being 
atlmitted  to  bear  arms.  The  cumilia  centuriata  are  a  very 
remarkable  instance  of  this.  Another  illu.stration  is  furnished 
by  the  testamcnttim  iu  procinctu,  whicli  was  a  will  made  be- 
fore the  general  assetiihft/t  whether  on  military  service  or  not. 
See  Nicbuhr  Uoman  History  i.  473.  It  seems  to  have  been 
originally  no  more  than  a  particular  form  of  the  testnmentnm 
in  romitiis  calatis.  See  Heinec.  Anti<j.  Syntagm.  ti.  Tit. 
X.  XI.  \ir.  $  t,  2,  .1,  4. 


"•  ai»ii,  XVI. 


9fi 


0»  the  Homeric  use  of  the  word  ''ilpw- 


The  fourth  condition  would  be  fulfilled  bv  a  natural  con- 
sequence of  the  same  feeling.  The  soldiers  of  these  free  bands 
would  feci  respect  for  the  title,  and  would  hardly  employ  it 
when  they  wanted  tn  ubuse  one  nnotlier. 

As  to  the  disaj>pearaiice  of  the  enniroon  uiie  of  the  word, 
we  must  recollect  that  the  race  which  supplanted  the  'A^aioU 
however  nearlv  allied  to  tliem  by  blood,  was  altogether  alien 
and  hostile  to  them  at  tlie  time.  The  manner  in  which  the 
'Ayaioi  were  driven  up  into  ^^!!gialia,  shews  clearly  that  the 
Heracleid  invaders  made  what  is  called  clean  work.  There  18 
nothing  remarkable  therefore  in  the  disappearance  of  the  word 
from  common  use:  neither  is  it  strange  tbat,  when  the  new 
settlers  l>egan  to  look  back  for  stories  of  glory  and  feats  of 
arms,  their  attention  should  fail,  almost  as  a  matter  of  course, 
upon  that  generation  whose  exploits  had  been  perpetuated, 
either  by  llie  greatest  of  poems  ever  composed,  or  by  ibe 
noblest  collection  of  legends  which  the  world  hns  ever  seen. 

Even  if  these  conditions  are  satisfied,  the  hypothesis  still 
rests  upon  very  slight  evidence.  They  are  not  sufficiently 
inconsistent  at  first  sight,  to  make  it  very  remarkable  that  a 
h)-potbesis  should  be  capable  of  being  shaped  into  conformity 
with  all  of  them.  However,  it  may  he  said  that  it  is  a 
hypothesis  whi*h  has  no  improbability  a  priori:  such  people 
M  composed  these  hands  did  exist,  we  know ;  it  is  likely  that 
they  should  have  a  peculiar  name;  and  we  find,  I  think, 
no  other  name  for  them. 

I  have  only  to  add  that  I  have  taken  the  whole  of  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey  as  safe  authority.  If  we  believe  ihem  to 
be  the  work  of  a  great  number  of  poets,  the  evidence  as  to 
the  use  of  any  word  found  in  them  generally,  or  of  any  liabits 
ap|X'aring  consistently  throughout,  is  still  stronger  tlian  if  we 
consider  the  whole  as  the  work  of  a  single  author. 


T.  F   E. 


)N  AFFKCTATTON  IN  ANCIENT  AND  MODERN 

ART. 


No  point  of  difference  between  the  works  of  ancient 
and  modem  art  is  more  striking,  than  the  almost  total  ab- 
sence of  affectation  in  the  former,  and  its  prevalence  in  the 
Utter.  The  thorough  examination  of  the  reason  why  what 
is  the  rule  in  one  case  should  he  the  exception  in  the  other, 
would  oblige  us  to  consider  all  tho8e  peculiarities,  physical  and 
mural,  which  made  the  Greeks  first  in  sculpture  and  in 
poetry  :  for  no  phenomenon  of  this  nature  can  be  considered 
att  insulated ;  it  is  only  one  point  in  that  aggregate  which  we 
call  national  character,  and  to  the  growth  of  which  a  thousand 
various  and  mingled  causes  must  contribute.  An  attempt 
of  this  kind,  even  the  slightest,  would  demand  a  far  abler 
hand  and  occupy  too  large  a  space ;  but  it  may  be  useful  to 
see  if  we  can  trace  any  of  the  more  immedmte  causes  of  this 
one  among  the  many  superiorities  of  the  Greeks. 

We  must  first  consider  what  we  mean  by  the  term. 
Affected  is  generally  opjwscd  to  natural ;  and  afftctatiun  may 
be  defined  as  a  visible  struggle  to  produce  an  t-ffect  on  a 
spectator.  To  do  an  act  naturally  is  to  do  it  as  if  the 
means  were  natural  to  us,  that  is,  so  familiar  that  our 
tbaughti)  do  not  dwell  on  them  for  a  single  moment,  and 
as  if  we  were  unconscious  of  the  presence  of  another,  by 
a  sort  of  singlemindedncsd  in  which  to  do  the  act,  and 
not  how  to  do  it,  is  all  wc  think  of.  The  way  in  which 
affectation  is  generally  shewn,  is  in  losing  sight  of  the  end, 
and  substituting  for  it  a  close  and  manifest  attention  to  the 
incans.  It  is  displeasing  to  us,  because  wc  look  suspiciou.sly 
on  any  avowed  intention  on  the  part  of  another  to  produce 
an  effect  upon  our  minds,  and  because  in  almost  every  instance 


94 


On  Affectation 


an  anxiety  so  strong  as  to  betray  itself  implies  a  consciousness 
of  dcBciency.  So  that  even  if  llie  deficiency  do  not  exist* 
we  assume  that  nothing  but  a  doubt  of  attaining  the  end 
could  demand  such  attention  tu  the  uiean^ 

In  applying  this  to  art  I  speak  of  course  only  with 
reference  to  the  artist,  not  to  those  ca&es  in  which  he 
intends  to  represent  tins  feeling  as  existing  in  the  subject  of 
his  work.  In  that  case  the  fault  is  one  of  another  kind,  the 
choice  of  an  unpleasing  subject:  a  fault  rare  among  the 
ancients,  but  too  common  among  the  greatest  mndem  artists, 
and  closely  connected  with  the  point  we  are  considering,  as  it 
has  often  arisen  from  a  wish  to  display  that  skill  and  know- 
ledge which  are  of  themselves  hut  means.  When  the  subject 
is  chosen  the  artistes  task  is  twofold :  to  conceive  it  in  his  own 
mind  as  he  wishes  to  convey  it  to  others,  and  to  impart  to  those 
others,  by  the  mechanical  means  of  his  art,  a  j)erfect  image  of 
that  conception.  There  are  certain  principles  which  he  roust 
not  violate,  and  which  are  to  be  traced  in  the  works  of  great 
masters;  conditions  indispensable,  but  not  of  themselves  suf- 
ficient, and  on  which  if  he  dwell,  so  as  to  make  them  an 
end,  affectation  «ill  result.  We  constantly  hear  it  objected, 
when  a  beauty  is  pointed  out  in  a  work  of  art,  "  But  I  doubt 
if  the  artist  meant  that^.  Schelling  has  observed  tliat  in 
the  highest  works  the  artist  is  necessarily  not  aware  of  all 
the  beauties  he  is  producing;  and  that  works  which  want 
the  stamp  of  this  unconscious  skill,  are  shallow  and  possess, 
aa  it  were,  no  independent  existence'.  The  artist  has  rea- 
soned out  principles  of  excellence,  and  laboriously  added 
bcautv  to  beauty;  but  there  was  wanting  that  feeUng  which 
catches  the  leading  character  of  the  subject,  and  instinctively 
adapts  every  feature  of  the  whole  to  that  character.  From 
this  alone  can  be  produced  the  tliorough  unity  and  reality 
of  a  work  of  nature.  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  says,  '  **  when  a 
voung  artUi  is  first  told  that  his  compiisition  and  his  attitude 
must  be  contrasted,  that  he  must  turn  the  head  contrary 
to  the  {xisition  of  the  body,  in  order  to  produce  grace  and 
animation;   that  Ins  outline  roust  be  undulating  and  swelUnj 


*  Uebff  du  Vertuluiiu  ilct  bildoMlra  Kuastc  lu  dcr  Niu»- 


in  Ancient  and  Modern  Ari. 


90 


to  give  grandeur;  and  that  the  eye  must  be  gratified  with 
a  variety  of  colours — when  he  is  told  this,  with  certain  ani- 
mating words  of  spirit,  dignity,  energy,  grace,  greatness  of 
style,  and  brilliancy  of  tints,  he  becomes  suddenly  vain  of 
his  newly  acijuired  knowledge  and  never  thinks  he  can  carry 
those  rules  too  far.'^  To  this  process,  ripened  into  man- 
nerism, we  owe  the  lengthened  limbs  and  contorted  attitudes 
of  Pannegianinu^  the  academical  display  of  muscles  of  the 
Florentines,  and  the  exaggerated  passion  of  the  rrencli 
school. 

Such  I  take  to  be  the  nature  of  affectation  In  art ;  and 

It   is   far   less   easy    to    say    wliy    the   ancients    were    entirely 

free  from  it,  then  to  asiiign  some  of  the  reason?>  M-hy  modern 

works  are  so  generally  tainted  witli  it;  and  this  lighter  task 

bifi  all  I  shall  iittenipt. 

Through   long  and   distinct    periods  of  history    dilFercnt 
l^rts  have  predominated  and  given  a  tone  to  the  others.     In 
]  Egypt  sculpture  never   ceased   to  bear  the  impress  of  archi- 
tectural character  and    symmetry;  and   the  political   and  te- 
dious institutions  of  that  singular  people  contributed  not  a 
llittle  to  preserve  it  from  change.     On  the  other  hand  when 
[ire  look  to  Greece  this  is  no  longer  the  case  ;  mid,  tliough  the 
one  is   always  essential    to  the    perfection  of  the  other,   yet 
sculpture   existed  free   and  independent.     She  exercised  how- 
ever a  similar  though  less  rigid  sway  there  over  her  younger 
lister,   Painting,  who  fallowed  her  as  well   in    manner  as  in 
time.     If  again   we  consider  their  relation  in  modern    uges% 
we  shall  Hnd  this  latter  art  predominant,  and  exerting  an  in- 
fluence   as  powerful    and    more  mischievous  than   she  herself 
had    previously    submitted    to.      All    this   is   siifHciently    ob- 
vious.     The  Menmon  or  the    Sphinx    are   almost    as    much 
buildings    as    statues;    and    t!ie    Aldobrandini    marriage  with 
its    single    succession  of  detached '   figures  is  a   basrelief  in 


*  The  Aiulogy  at  the  litmtnire  or  the  utdent!i  und  mmlenM  {i  M  dose  that  muftili* 
tiutnm/tu  wtulevCT  U  uiil  of  thf  oo  nilletl  imitalive  Arts  may  be  ajiptiei)  tn  it :  but 

[  liiub  beyond  my  tubjeci,  ind  ha*  been  developed  already  by  one  far  more  eompe- 
'  knt  to  the  taak. 

•  It  {>  tingular  that  even  in  canes  where  the  height  above  the  eye  aiid  ih*  objeCT 
of  the  wotV  require  particular  diitinctncw,  this  principle  has  w  often  been  violated 
by  the  modems  in  Kulplure.     tn  18211  there  waa  on  exhibition  in  Paris  of  a  number  of 


96 


0/1  AffectatiMi 


colours;  whilst  the  confused  grouping  and  contracted  limbs'' 
of  Puget's  Alexander  and  Diogenes  at  Versailles  betray  the* 
favorite  pupil  of  Fietro  di  Cortona,  and  might  be  called  a 
picture  in  marble.  This  sacriHce  of  sculpture  to  painting' 
appears  to  be  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the  fault  ia 
question.  It  has  brought  with  it  the  struggle  for  the  ex- 
pression of  |>a»8ionf  and  the  substitution  of  this  fur  form  and 
dignity,  arising  from  the  peculiar  fitness  of  painting  for  it, 
and  from  the  tendency  of  mankind  to  push  a  thing  too  far, 
when  it  has  already  succeeded  up  to  a  certain  point  The 
contrast  between  the  progress  of  the  two  arts  has  often  been 
remarked.  Painting,  being  associated  with  the  Christian  wor- 
ship, and  eminently  calculated  to  portray  the  sentiments  of 
the  heart  in  the  face,  attaineil,  while  the  art  of  drawing  the 
figure  was  yet  rude,  to  a  perfection  in  expression  which  baa 
never  been  surpassed,  and  which  has  not  existed  in  union 
with  the  same  simplicity  and  serene  beauty  since  tlie  days  of 
Ilaphael.  Sculpture,  when  she  had  once  individualized  the 
gods  of  epic  poetry,  without  attempting  to  express  feel- 
^"J^^N  proceeded  to  clothe  them  in  those  glorious  forms 
which  led  Aristotle  to  say,  exc<  tovto  ye  <pavepov^  wy  « 
ToaovTov  yevotvTO  otad)opot  to  awna  fiovov  o<rov  a'l  Ttue  Bewv 
cixoivc,  Tov?  UTroXeiTTOMevow  irai'Te?  (paiev  av  ai^lovK  eivai  toi*- 
Tots  dovKevetv.      Pol.  i.  5. 

Expression  indeed  is  used  for  two  very  different  things; 
and  the  ambiguity  is  worth  dwelling  on  for  a  moment,  as  it 
is  in  constant  use,  and  has  probably  caused  much  mischief 
in  art.  It  is  obvious  that  we  may  emphty  the  term  for 
the  expression  cither  of  character  or  passion%  of  those  emotions 
which  agitate  the  human  frame  and  distort  the  features,  or 


modelx  in  ■ciilptuK'  for  the  pedlmmt  of  the  Madeleine ;  of  these  not  above  two  or  three 
\uA  aroided  the  fault  of  hnving  more  thin  one  plan.  Compare  Sir  Jostraa  Heynold^ 
Discourae  x. 

*  A.  Tbiench  Epochen  der  tincch.  KunsL 

*  I'ntentchied  in  Aiuchun(|;  der  Schi:inhdt  dea  Auidnicka  xviachcn  tranaitariM^CBi 
iind  penuaiioitem.  Jener  tat  gearattsam  und  folgUch  nie  ichon :  dleacr  Ut  die  VtAgt 
van  drr  nftcin  WtederholunR  den  Kraiem*  vertta^  Rich  nichi  allein  mil  der  Sehiinheil, 
■ondcm  bringt  aurh  mehr  Venhiedenheit  in  die  Scfabnheit  aelbau  I  fit  ring  Fragnuntc 
lun  aien  Tfa.  dei  Laokoon,  Werke  x.  7<  Caanpare  Merer**  not««  on  WtDkelmiion'a 
Werkf.  IV.  Ik  S«X 


in  Ancieni  nnd  Modern  Art 


B7 


Icf  that  which  is  the  result  of  a  uuccesiiion  of  such  emotions 
[in  a  raorul  being. 

The  one  display's  the   ^Bov  or  habit  of  mind,  as  far  as  it 
is  capable  of  shewing  itself  not  only  in  the  face  and  figure, 
'but   even    in    the   drapery,   that   **  thousandfold   echo  of  the 
fforni,"  according  to  the  poetical  and  strictly  accurate  expres- 
sion of  Goethe';    the    other   the   transitory   feelings,    which 
are  violent  in  proportion  to  the  shortness  of  their  duration, 
and    which  must   be  moderated  and    partly    concealed    l>efore 
they  can  be  reconciled  with  the   unity   and  beauty  requisite 
in  a  work  of  art.     The  eye,  in  which  the  passion  of  the  mo- 
ment is  most  visible",  belongs  to  painting  only;  the  lines  of 
rthe  mouth  and  forehead,  which  mainly  convey  the  character, 
Jtre  belter  given  by  scidpture:  passion  is  excited  by  external 
Icircumstances,  and  therefore  requires  accessories  to   be   intel- 
TUgible;  character  is  complete  in  itself,  and  is  rather  marred 
than  improved  by  the  presence  of  such  accidents.     Thus  whilst 
'sculpture  led  the  way,  painting  was  restrained  from  any  undue 
exercise  of  her  powers";  and  there  was  little  fear  of  their  pro- 
ceeding too  far  in  a  track  so  ill  suited  to  the  faculties  of  the 
one  who  acted  as  guide-     As  long  as  this  was  the  case,  and 
the  mere  overcoming  a  difficulty  was  not  considered  so  much 
an  end  as  to  authoriKe  the  choice  of  a  subject  and  the  adoption 
of  a  style  incompatible  with   the  principles  of  sculpture  and 
I  the  nature  of  the  materials,  so  long  exaggeration  and  affecta- 
tion  were  unkno^m.     The  Greeks  felt  that  passion  is  doubly 
'hideous  grinning  in    the  hard    lines  of  marble,  and    that   to 
destroy  beauty  of  form  by  the   distortion  of  violent  feeling 
^  can  necer  answer,  least   of  all  wlicrc  that   beauty  of  form  is 
^  the  very  condition  of  the  art  itself,  and  where   the  eye  can- 
not be  indemnified  for  its  loss  by   the  contrast  of  light  and 
shade  or  the  richness  of  colotmng.     Let  us  see  how  the  case 
stands  with  us :  the  public  tnste  nnd  the  works  of  artists  react 


^  WHhdm  MeUt«n  I:<^jahre,  Itm  Buch.  8tes  K.  cf.  JMuller  Hindbuch.  p.  433. 
*  Animi  «t  cnim  ninnis  actio,  et  itnitgi>  uiimi  vultiw  est,  indices  ocuU  ;  nam  haec 
cat  tuu  ymn  curporM,  iiuar,  quoi  animi  mnnis  buiiI,  tot  Nigniiinttionn  et  commut«lion«a 
poHit  cfficcrc.  OciUiiB  auieiii  Natun  nubi»>,  lit  eqiio  et  leoni  jubM,  C4udftm,  aurei, 
•d  nuto*  animoniiii  decUruidM  dediL  Cic.  dc  Orau  ill.  J>9.  Proftcto  In  ocuUl 
animus  inbabitau     I'lin.  xu  3/.  cf.  Juniiu  de  PicL  V'cL  p.  179. 

'  AiiftiotlcMy*  oi p<t'*nterB,    «  fii»  yip  XioKvyvtaros  dyaQ^  >i$ayfni^c9^  H  ^  2ff(- 
I  ypu^  eiiiw  fxct  ^9ov.    Poet.  Ti. 

Vol.  II.  No.  4.  N 


08 


On  Affectatiou 


one  on  tlie  other;  and  it  is  to  be  lioped  that  Canova's  style  w 
the  transition  to  a  great  inipnneniunt  in  both.  His  '"  Boxers 
and  his  Hercules  are  positively  fearful:  they  are  Fretich 
pictures  in  marble;  and,  as  if  to  shew  how  he  could  err  io 
both  extremes,  he  has  substituted  a  sioipering  preltiness  in 
his  Graces  for  the  dignity  of  the  ancients.  In  liis  Dancer 
we  have  the  studied  attitudes  and  airs  of  the  ballet  fixed  in 
the  stiffness  of  a  statue.  Still  he  has  the  merit  of  having  in 
many  of  his  works  gone  a  great  part  of  the  way  back  to- 
wards the  antique;  and  such  men  as  Flaxman,  Thorwaldsen, 
and  Ranch,  have  nearly  completed  the  task.  The  first 
demand  which  we  hear  made  by  the  mass  of  those  who  affect  to 
judge  works  of  art  is  expression,  and  expression  of  some- 
thing definite :  they  like  to  point  to  a  face  and  be  able  to 
tell  exactly  what  passion  or  feeling  it  is  meant  to  display. 
Hence  the  Dying  Gladiator  is  more  popular  perhaps  than  any 
other  statue;  and  hence,  where  we  can  find  one  who  estimates 
properly  the  tranquil  beauty  of  Bellini,  Pcrugino,  FraDcia, 
and  Raphael's  earlier  manner,  there  are  a  thousand  who  dwell 
with  raptures  on  the  work»  of  the  later  Bolognesc  school 
and  of  the  Flemings,  even  in  cases  where  their  great  and 
characteristic  merits  arc  impaired  bv  this  very  exaggeration. 
What  shall  we  say  when  wc  find  "Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  himself 
saying  that  "  The  Apollo,  the  Venus,  the  Laocoou,  the  Gla- 
diator, have  a  certain  rom|»sition  of  action,  have  contrasts 
AuiHcieut  to  give  grace  and  energy  in  n  high  degree;  but  it 
must  be  confessed,  of  the  many  thousand  antique  statucA  which 
wc  have,  that  their  general  characteristic  is  bordering  at  least 
on  inanimate  in.sipidity^? 

To  fix  any  line  by  which  to  measure  the  due  quantity  of 
expression  of  passion  is  impossible  :  it  necessarily  varies  with 
the  power  of  the  artist.  There  must  l>e  a  certain  groundwork 
(if  I  may  use  the  expression)  of  character,  to  support  the 
feeling:    if    the    latter    be    so    strong    as    entirely    to    eSace 

■*  Cfwnp«rr  A.  W.  Sch)ej;cli  Schreibcn  ui  Oocthe  iil>cr  eini)(e  Arbdtcn  in  Root 
lebcndcr  KunsUer,  1H0.V  (Kril.  Sdiriftcn,  Th.  ii.  p.  339.)  Wt  mi^  ^pply  to  thew 
nro  vorki  the  word  w^i<Attpvow  u  ^ren  bj  Longiniii,  Scet.  in.    -rnimf  a-a^oxctTA* 

Wtnkelmwin.  iv.  p.  IA.V    Junius  dc  Pin.  Vet.  p.  187< 

■■  DUcwiTKC  riii.    ('omiHUV  Winkelnwnn  M'crke,  it.  p.  Ifl. 


in  Ancient  and  Modern  Arr 


Of) 


tlie  former,  the  work  will  convey  the  idea  of  a  mask  rather 
than  of  a  real  being.  It  han  hecn  remarked  of  Shakespeare, 
that  one  of  hin  great  excellencies  arises  from  the  persons  in  his 
plays  not  being  mere  representatives  of  a  class,  but  individuals 
with  definite  characters  of  their  own,  who  rise  and  mingle  as 
such  in  the  events  licfore  us.  So  must  it  be  in  every  Jinished 
work  of  real  poetry  and  art.  In  both  cases  the  troifitrti  is 
the  re-embodying  in  the  shojie  of  individuals  the  abstractions 
previously  formed  in  our  minds:  and  Wordsworth  has  truly 
said  "  that  poetry  takes  its  origin  from  emotion  recollected  in 
tranquillity^^"  When  we  see  a  good  portrait  we  say  that 
**  there  is  much  trufh  in  it ;"  and  we  mean,  if  I  miftake  not, 
that  it  looks  like  a  real  person  with  some  kind  of  character  of 
his  own,  though  we  have  never  seen  him  for  whom  it  is 
intended ;  in  short  that  it  is  not  one  of  the  ideal  *'  Ladies  or 
Gentlemen*'  of  the  Exhibition,  who  represent  the  class  mainly 
by  virtue  of  their  clothes '^  This  use  of  the  word  "truth" 
is  phiiomphicalty  just;  for  to  paint  passion  without  character 
is  to  exhibit  on  abstraction  of  the  mind  to  the  eye.  It  is 
realism  in  art,  or  an  attempt  to  give  an  independent  existence 
to  that  which  in  nature  exists  only  in  individuals  combined 
with  all  their  accidents.  The  passion  of  anger  for  instance 
is  only  really  exhibited  to  us  ns  affecting  the  character  or 
swaying  the  actions  of  an  individual  mnn  :  and  therefore  that 
artist  is  not  true  to  nature  who  merely  Iwnds  the  brow  and 
flushes  the  cheek  of  his  figures  as  anger  would  dn,  but  he 
wh(j  combines  those  marks  of  passion  with  the  impress  of  a 
de6nitc  character,  and  thus  creates. 

The  case  with  regard  to  ufTcctation  in  form  and  grouping 
is  much  the  same  as  in  exaggerated  expression :  it  is  as  rare 
in  ancient  as  common  in  modern  art.  Grouping  indeed,  as 
generally  Bpply  the  word,  was  almost  unknown  t(»  the 
nplicity  of  ^*  Greek  sculpture  :   tlic  number  of  persons  was 


'■  Prcfoceto  Lyricml  BiUUds,  Works,  iv.  p.  SBfK 

"  Hence  In  UnilBt'Bpc  *l*o  the  imponance of  Kkecchini;  from  iiftture;  for  chat  kloae 
CM  fpTc  iDdiriduB]  character  to  every  object,  and  preserve  ui  artist  from  generaluun^ 
in  luch  a  v%y  tt»  muftt  Rnalljr  tcBd  to  mtnnetiaoi. 

■*  M<iller  hu  well  remarked  that  *.b«  mixture  of  Greek  and  Anfalic  nutoina  at 
UhmIw  produced  "  a  peculiar  compound,  of  whirti  the  Rhodian  oratory,  paintinj;,  and 
Knlpture  abould  be  conftidered  as  the  products,  'llic  latter  ail  had  flouriahed  there 
Trnm  ancfrai  times ;  but  later  it  look  a  phrticuUr  mm  towardn  ilic  roimKal.  the  imgxininf;. 


100       On  Affectation  in  Ancient  and  Modem  Art. 

small  as  on  the  stage  *^ ;  and  that  which  it  required  a  crowd 
to  portray  literally,  such  as  a  town  or  a  nation,  was  repre- 
sented by  a  single  figure.  The  difference  is  the  same  as 
that  between  the  comparative  simplicity  of  ancient  titles 
and  modes  of  address  and  the  long  ceremonial  of  later 
times :  it  is  life  out  of  doors  beneath  a  clear  sky,  ctmtrasted 
with  life  in  the  cumbrous  splendour  of  a  palace.  Win- 
kelmann  has  remarked  the  progressive  degeneracy  from 
M.  Angelo  to  Bernini.  The  earlier  Italian  sculptors,  though 
not  absolutely  free  from  aiTectation,  redeemed  it  by  many 
other  excellencies,  which  are  visible  in  a  high  degree  also 
in  the  works  of  Goujon  in  the  sixteenth  century.  At  length 
we  arrive  at  the  graceful  contortions  of  Bernini,  and  what 
was  thought  the  sweeping  outline  and  richness  of  the  sculp- 
tors under  Louis  XIV.  In  their  hands  all  unity,  all  simplicity 
vanishes :  the  most  trifling  ornament,  the  twist  of  a  leaf,  or 
the  turn  of  a  finger  equally  betrays  the  besetting  sin  of 
thinking  how  they  should  be  graceful.  They  knew  not  that 
singleminded  devotion  to  their  subject  which  would  have  dwdt 
on  the  end  instead  of  the  means;  and  they  substituted  a  studied 
display  of  mechanical  skill  for  the  purity  and  dignity  visible 
in  the  works  of  the  ancients,  and  in  many  of  the  products  of 
what  we  term  the  dark  ages. 

E.  W.  H. 


and  the  grand  style.  The  Lmkimid  and  the  Tom  Faroeae  are  among  the  nnmber  of  ita 
finest  prodactkns."  DotianSt  ii.  p.  41.^.  Taorisnta,  one  of  the  sculpton  of  the  last 
named  wtA,  was  of  Tnllca.  PUn.  xxxn.  4.  And  it  u  an  exception  to  the  nsoal 
shnplidty  at  compoaitkin  in  Greek  Art.  Doubta  have  been  exptessed  on  other  grounds 
as  to  the  antiquity  of  Michael  Angelo's  seal  in  the  Royal  libiaiy  at  Paris.  See 
MiUin  Intiod.  p.  SOO.  The  want  of  simplicity  in  the  composition,  which  marc  m- 
aemhlea  that  of  a  pictme,  appcan  to  me  somcwliat  anspicioua. 
"  Miiller,  Handboch^  p.  435. 


DE  ARATI    CANONE 
AUGUSTI  BOECKHII   PROLUSIO  ACADEMICA. 


iHATo  Solensi,  clarissiuio  caelestium  signorum  enarratori, 
turn  veteruin  Graecorum  el  Rumunoruin  multi  iique  maxiine 
insignes  viri*  operaui  dicurunt,  iu  his  Attains  Rhodius  et 
Hipparchns  Bithynus  matheuiatici,  postea  Achilles  Tatius  el 
Thcon  Alexandrinus,  ex  quurum  cuiumentariis  quaodam  au- 
persunt,  id  pHinis  vero  M.  Tullius  Ciuero  et  Caesar  sive  Ger- 
Tiianicus  sive  Doniitianus,  juveiiilibus  ulerque  studiis  Aratum 
interpretatus;  turn  cidein  pjst  lungain  saeculorum  seriem 
nianum  admovit  Hugo  Grotius  vix  turn  pueritiam  egressus, 
et  nostra  aetate  in  Gerniaiiia  et  in  hac  potissimum  urbe 
complures  iique  faiua  Horentissimi  docti  luceiu  attuleruat 
et  afferuDt.  Nam  post  Biihlii  cnllectionem  Iu.  Heur.  VosiduBf 
bonis  litteris  nujwrrinie  creptus,  vcmaculis  Aratum  veraibus 
expresait  natis(|ue  illustrnvit ;  Phil.  Buttniannus  Dovis  adjutus 
copiia  parabilem  adolesccntibus  editioneni  ante  bus  duos  annos 
curavit;  anipliorem  nunc  ip^iim  adornavit  coUega  noster  Imm. 
Bckkerus;  et  Lud.  Ideler,  vir  huic  rei  in  paucis  par,  publicis 
Aratum  schoUs  expHcare  commilitonibus  nostris  aolet.  Ac- 
cessit  erudita  Cfiinmentatin  de  ojwribus  Arati*,  a  Guil.  Henr. 
Grauerto  eo  consilio  compusita,  ut  poema  dc  astris  loD^ 
aniplius  olim  et  fere  quint^uepartitum^  fuissc  demonstrarct, 
comprehendens  illud  duas  Phaenumenorum  partes,  'AffTpo- 
0eaiay,  et  ^uvava-rfWovTwv  Kat  avvovvovToiv  Bive  AvaToXtjv 
(Uipparchu  initio  commentariorum  ^vvayaroXat  dictas),  turn 
Kat^vat  ct  post  hunc  Prognostica,  quas  Graeci  AioarjM'uti* 
Yocant.  Nos  nunc,  quoniam  dc  Canoiie  nun  videtur  sufK- 
cienter  disputatum,  dc  hoc  ipso  exponere  consutuimus. 

*  VUt  flflmmentuioruni  A  P.  Vui4)ha  cditomm  ftann.   p.  IS8. 

-  Muk.  Rlim.  Juriipnid.  philol,  etc.  T.  t.  F.  iv.  p.  334t  pftrth  philotojpne. 

*  Qulntum  Ubunn  ' -Ka-rfUKaw  citst  Txeiuii  1.  c.  inftL 

*  Ue  hue  roTBw  side  Ornuemun,  e(  llawum  tA  lo.  Lyd.  dc  Oueni.  p.  301. 


102 


De  Arati  Canone. 


Canoms  ter  meminit  Achilles  Tatius  in  Prol^omenis 
Arateis.  Primiini^  postquam  Aratuin  docuit  noliiisse  in  Fhae- 
ncnnenis  de  planetis  agere,  quippe  hoc  deprecatum  vs.  400 
his  verbis, 

OuireTi  OapaaXeo^  Keiyww  eyut  apKttK  fff^v 
aw\av^ts>v  Ta  t6  xi/kXq  to  t  a'tOept  (rrffiaT  evttrTretVf 
addit  Achilles ;  Y]apaiT€tTat  oe  ota  woWfK  airia^'  'ttowtov 
OTi  (patt'on^va  t]0eXn<T€  xat  'jraat  cvfKptoi'a  cei^at  a<TTf)a, 
ovToi  oe  xvXXffi'  oiadiwvlav  e^oi/tn  Ta!  oi/oe  iraffiv  eiai  tpavepoi' 
ev  ce  Ttji  cirvypaipotiEVtp  avTov  Kavon  tov  ttcjO*  auTwv  irot- 
oufievm  Xoyov  aftfiovli^  tivI  xat  tru/iKJituvia  fxovtrtKfi 
TO 9  Ktv^jtretv  auTftii'  Xeyet  yey overai.  Hoc  rcpetit 
paulu  |>ost':  Trept  ce  t^<;  evapfioviov  /rtrp/trcwv  avTwv 
{twv  eirra  trtprupwy)  etirev  w^  eibtjp  ApaTtK  cv  xift  Kavovt 
KoX  {'.paroaSivrti  ev  Ttp  'V.ptit)  Kot  Y>^xjr\^;  xai  AopaaTm 
'A<Ppoctatetj^'  rip^arro  oc  tov  Xo'yQii  toutou  o't  tXuSayopeiot' 
Trdrra  yap  dpuovltj^  (cat  Ta^€t  Xeyovtrt  Ktyeiadcu*  Et  mox": 
rioWoi  Twi'  eiri<bave<TTepQiv  vepl  tjXiov  koI  trfXrjvrt^  evpay- 
/larevaavTOy  lo/ijt  0€  jcaj  wept  twi*  Trerre'  oto  xat  Aparoy 
ictttts  ftev  Tcoi  ^Xiov  xal  aeX^vTf^  Trpo^  Tip  TeXtt  riys  irM^<T€a>i 
tlwevf  iSi^  C€  irepi  twv  ireyre  ev  tw  €irtypa(pofiffip 
Kavovt.  Scd  magis  discrte  libri  hujus  arguinentum  eloquitur 
index  ejus  in  vita  Matritensi",  Karuros-  Kararofi.^;  superesl 
enim  praecUrus  libellus  Eiiclidi  tributus,  qui  inseribitur  Ka- 
TaTon*i  Kay6voi'\  superest  in  Thconis  Smyrnaei  libro,  quern 
de  musiea  scripsit,  caput '^  irepl  t^v  tov  KavQVo<i  (caraTow^i' 
c  Thrasyllo  maxirae  petitum;  unde  constat  canonis  sectiouem, 
canonicos  musicae  opus,  nihil  esse  aliud  nisi  musicorum  certi 
ab'cujus  systematis  sonoruni  in  montwhordo  designationem, 
quae  secundum  longitudincm  chordarum  instituatur.  Jam 
vero  qui  harmoniam  sphaerarum  c'X|)nnondam  snsceperit,  ei 
canonis  sectione  opus  est :  sicut  Thrasyllus  ct  Theo  Smyrnaeus 
canonis  sectionem  eu  consilio  proposuerunt,  ut  ex  ea  Platonis 
psychogoniam  indeque  aptum  sjihaeraruni  concent uiu  expli- 
carent ;  et  queni  Achilles  Tatius  ul  Aratuin  iii  Pythagorica 
ilia    sphaerarum     harmonia    tractanda    versatum    esse    dixit, 


^  C.  1«.  «  C.  !«.  '  L'.  111.  «  T.  II.  p.  W2.  at>.  Uuhl. 

"  In  leptOTi  MiuiciB  Mcibonili,  po»t  Euclidin  iniroductionnti  hu-mnnirAn). 
'"  C.  35. 


De  Arati  Cajione. 


103 


Adrnstum  Peripatetic uni,  Timaei  Platonici  quodammodo  in- 
ti'rprctem,  euni  et  ijisum  in  eunoiiis  sectiune  esse  occupatum, 
docet  frequens  de  en  in  rel}U5  hannonicis  nientlo^'.  Itaque 
Aratiim  in  Canone  sonorum  musicorum  designationem  et 
cum  hac  Rphaeranim  concentum  et  aliquid  fortasse  de  motu 
docui»te  liquet ;  conjiciasque  illud  ^phaerarum  systema  har* 
uionicum,  quod  a  muRicis  ext:ogitatum  refert  Achilles  Tatius'-, 
ex  Arateo  esse  Canone  petitum :  quibus  rebus  adspectuum 
quoque  rationem  conjungere  Aratus  potuit,  quos  musicia  cuu- 
sonantiis  comparavit  certe  Ptolemaeu^. 

Cannine  conceptuni  Arati  Canoneni  esse  licet  nemo  tra- 
didcrit,  tanieu  facile  credet  qui  Arateuni  cousiderarit  ii]genium> 
et  ex  Arato,  Eratostht^ne,  aliis,  quousque  in  rebus  vel  sub- 
tilissimis  poetice  narrandis  progressi  Graeci  sint,  aestiniaverit. 
Achillis  Tatii  quideni  verba,  quibus  Cauonem  et  tc)  TtXos 
T^$  Trmt]<T€tiK  oppunit,  quamquam  po6.sunt  eu  trahi^  ut  Canon 
solutaorationcscriptusputetur,  hoc  ipsum  neutiquani  evincunt, 
propterea  quod,  etiamsi  Canoneni  ibi  non  a  solo  Jine  carminiSy 
ut  Grauertus'^  interpretatur,  distingui  judicabi^^  ^  a  carmine 
quod  superest  univemo,  Achilles  poiuit  dicere  r^y  ■jroi^CTeats,  ut 
earn,  in  qua  vttrsabaturj  poesin  significaret,  non  ut  negarct 
etiani  Canonem  esse  versibus  conceptuui.  Acccdit,  quod  Caesar 
iu  translatione  Phaenoincnorum  v,  441,  ubi  Canunis  memor  est, 
quo  Aratus  planetus  illustraverit,  ita  fere  de  eo  operc  ut  de 
carmine  dixit : 

Hoc  opus  arcanis  si  cretlam  jiostnaodn  MuHs, 
Twnpus,  et  ipse  labor,  patiantur  fata,  dotebit. 
Quodsi  Canonem  non  fuisse  pocma  certe  non  constat,  quaesicris, 
utrum  is  cum  Phaenomenis  et  Oiosemiis  unum  constituent  opus, 
' .\<rTf»tta,  cujus  quintum  libnim  memorat  Tzctzcs,  an  distinctus 
ab  illis  Canon  fuerit.  Et  primum  in  fine  o]>eris,  post  Diose- 
mias,  Canon  annccti  commode  non  potuit,  quod  Diosemiarum 


"  Cwioiiii  HetUBwm  doruinms  ei  ipsi,  partini  *A  hHniioniani  Kphunrum  ilhis. 
Inulam  in  ('omnicnt.  de  procrcftiioao  animae  munttanac  in  I'lkUHiis  Timseo  (Daub, 
et  Creiuer.  Stud.  T,  iii,  p.  (W  ftqij.).  putini  musicae  veterbt  explicuitUc  csum  in 
Ubrii  de  Metria  Piudan  iii.  7-  p-  '^B  sqij.  quae  noUcintu  ignarata  cue.  In  priore 
UbvD  ctum  de  Adriutu  aionuiTnuH  p.  Alt. 

'■  C.  17.  Hoc  expotuiuias  in  Coinm.  de  procreatione  anlmae  p.  91.  et  cum  kills 
oonponifrook 

"  Ulc  cnim  CammesD  In  medio  cannine  inaertam  ftitiae  potat,  cni  opp«o«lur  ri 


104 


De  Arati  Canotie. 


ca  pars,  quae  est  post  signa  ex  luna  et  sole  petenda,  jam  ommno 
alieoa  ab  astrorum  doctrina  est :  initio  vero  carminis  quiiiti 
coUocatus  esse  nequeat,  superest  ut  inter  Phaenomena  et 
Diosemias  interpositus  fnerit.  Sed  utut  claudifat  a  Phaeno- 
mcnis  ad  Dioseiniafl  transitus  (vs.  7Sfl — 739),  has  cum  iUia_ 
certissime  conjungit  vs.  740  carminis: 

Akjoq  ye  fif^v  vvktwv  KCitrai  ovoKaiotKa  ftotpat 
apKiat  e^enreiv  l 
quae  verba  redeunt  ad  alteram  Pbaenoraenoruni  pnrtem  de  ort 
signorum  Zodiaci  sive  '^vvovaroXa^ :  ad  quam  partem  tarn" 
brevitcr  provocari  nun  poterat,  si  inter  illam  ci  Diosemias 
integer  intereessisset  Canon  diversi  prorsus  argumenti.  AH 
dicfts  de  signorum  Zodiaci  ortu  etiam  Canonem  exposuisse: 
quippe  duo  supersunt  Caesaris  Prognosticorum  fragmenta", 
in  qnibus  dc  tcmpcstatibus,  quae  sub  singulis  Zodiaci  signis 
accidcre  solcant*  et  de  propriis  viribus  agatiir,  quas  planetarum 
quisque  ilia  signs  possidens  adjungat ;  quae  fragmenta  initio 
Prognosticorum  Cacsaris  coUocata  fuissc  ex  ejusdem  Scholiaste 
rccte  colligitur'":  haec  igitiir  Caesar  ex  Canonc  transtulis.se 
putatur,  qui  inter  Phaenomena  ct  Diosemias  cssct  inscrtus. 
Sed  postquam  Canonis  argumentum  prort^us  aliud  ct  maxinM 
nmsicum  esse  docuimus,  quia  non  probabilius  dixerit,  Cacsarem 
ilta  dc  suo  addidisse,  non  vertisbc  ex  Arato?  Neque  ulluqi 
illis  fragmentis  vestigium  Graeci  inest  exemplaris:  quodsi  ifl 
iis  Graeca  reperiuntur  signorum  nomina,  ut  Jegftferos,  Chele, 
BUG  his  jure  Latinus  poeta  usus  est,  nee  propter  haoc  debemus 
iUoa  versus  ex  Graecis  translatos  judicare:  et  verba", 

Qtti  ftindit  laticesy  caelo  quoque  permoi^et  imhres, 
quibus  hisus  Graeci  poetae  in  voco'Ycpoj^dos  expressus  dicitui 
sine  Graecis  expHcari  optime  possunt:  **■  Aquarius,  qui  ftecun 
dum  receptam  in  Catasterisniis  imaginem  ex  urna  fundit  latices, 
cut  ctiam  auctor  imbrium  caelo  dclabentiuni'".  Quid  quod 
Aratum  quinque  planetarum  in  certis  Zodiaci  signis  situi  ullam 
ad  tempestntes  efficiendas  triliuisse  vim,  hand  doeueri^i  facilius, 
quam  genctbliacorum  ilium  addictum  insaniai;  fuisse?  Quod 
vero  Caesar,  scilicet  Arati  Canonem  inter  Phaenomena  et  I^iflfl 
semias  lectum  secutus,  in  eodem  I'rognosticorum  initio  simur 


■*  Ajnid  Buhlium  T.  i 
"  V.  Onu«ct.  p.  344. 


I.  p.  103  aqq.  C£.  Graaen.  p.  U2  tqq.  el  p.  344. 
■•  Fngni.  1.  T.  IB. 


De  Arati  Can&nc. 

de  solis  ct  tunao  ciirsu  ei  de  ortu  et  occasu  tstcUarum  tiingulitf 
Ldiebus  certis  Gracciac  locis  et  in  Aegypto  acciilcntc  cxposuisae 
fcviisetur,  qui|)pe  dc  quibus  rebus  disputant  ejus  Scholiustus", 
id  focili  opera  rcmovcris.     Nam  ut  conccdomus,  de  sole  ct  luna 
Aratum  in  Canonc  o^sse,  tamen  ortus   ct  occasus  aslrorum, 
t|ualem    Caesaris    Scholiastps    exhibct,     cum    Canoiiis    argu- 
menlo  nihil   fere  commune  habct :  nee  ai  Caesur  in  Prognos- 
ricis   de   ortu    ct    occasu    astrorum    dixisset,    ut    tenipesitates 
simul  accideutes  demonstrorct,  poterut  hoc   ex  Aratei  camdnis 
parte  inter  Phaenoincna  et  Dioscmias    inserta  petisse,    prop- 
terea  quod    Arutus    in    Diosemiis '"     ipse    signiBcut    sese    haec 
non  tracta.'^se,  utpote  ex  Af  etunei  caieiularii  ^Triafjuuiriai^  nota. 
Denique  ne  Caesarem  quidtnn   In  ProgiuMliciH  de  illlK,  quae 
dicuntur,   rebus  exjHisuisse  constat:  ut  Achille.s  Tatius  niulta 
exponit,   de    quibus   nihil    Aratux    in    PhaeuonieniH,    ila    .Sdiu- 
liftjitea  Caesariit  8uo  Marte  (|itaedam  de  sole  et  luna  congessit, 
et  ex  variis  parapegniaiis  .steliarum  aunotavit  ortua  et  <HX.*aHUs, 
qui  cerlia  diebus  accidebaut  in  Attica  (ex  Jletone  baud  dubie), 
in  Boeotia,   Aeg^'pto,  apud  Aasyrios,  Chaldaeos,  pustremu  in 
Italia,   frequenter  provocans  etiuni    ad  Caesaretn,  liuc  e.st  ad 
Divum  Juliuui,  cujus  caleudarium   nutihr^imum   crat :   pror^iu.t 
ut   ex    Claudio   Tuaoo   Jo.   Lydus    contexuit    e<f>ijittf3ui'   tov 
aroin-ot    cpiai/ruif,    in   qua    ftimititer   commiata   diversa   lalen- 
daria"  sunt.     (^u£ic  ScholiaHtes  ad  astrognusiam  illustrandam 
eontuliti  non  rettulit  ex  Caesaris  Prt^usticis;  neque  ilia  ad 
Araliun    pertinent  ullu  ratione.     Postremo  inter   Aruti  Phae^ 
nofnena  et    Diusemia^^     nihil    interpo&ituni    fui»^Ls    nun    niodo 
Scholiasttae  Araici   et    Avieiius  agnoACunt,   sed   ipse   Achillets 
Tatius  his   verbis*:    'O   <)€     ApaTo^:  Trep't    twv  "nevTe  Xeyetv 
wnpntTriaafiivos   fiCTa   Ttjv   Twy  tpatvo fie i-wv  octfic   irep't    rjXiou 
«u  atXnvtj^  X€y€t :  quae  verba  Canoneni  ex  iUo  loco  excludunt 
marrifeMo.     Quodsi  idem  Achilles  Dioseniiarum  initium  de  sole 
et  lunn  dicit  trpos  tw  reXet  nj?  ttoiz/Vcw?  esse,   non  potest  hoc, 
ut  nnpcr  factum  est,  ita  intelligi,  ut  Canoncm  ante  Dioseniias 
tectum   fuissc  significct   nnctor,   qui   quidem  panin  ante   ipse 
il<icucrit    Pliat-nomena   cuntinuari    Diosemiis,     sed    illaa   vitces 


"  Apud  BuhUum  T.  it.  p.  Iflll  nqt^. 

"  V.  20,  (7iii.)  cf.  Schol.  et  Udrr.  ChronoL  T.  I.  |>.  314.  S27. 

'»  V.  IIm.  p.  3-ir..  «).  I.yd.  de  m.wnt.  »  V.  IH. 

Vol.  I.  No    1.  O 


106 


De  Araii  Canone 


irpiv  xy  TtKet  t$9  irot^etov  de  altera  eaque  minore  carminis 
parte  pariim  exacte  ilictas  esse  conceilenclum  est-  Sivc  enim 
Canonem  Achilles  ipse  legit,  sive  ex  priore  aliquo  auctore  traxit 
ejus  notitiam,  eerie  verlia  irpoK  t^*  Te\«»  t^  iroti^eaK  non 
debontur  antiqtiiori,  sed  sunt  Achilli  propria,  ideoque  ita 
explicftri  debent,  ut  conseodant  cum  iis,  quae  dixerat  paulo 
ante. 

Canon  igitur  quum  neque  in  fine  Diosemiarum  ncque  ante 
has  positus  fuerit,  utique  eximendus  ex  eo  opere  videtur,  cujus 
partes  supersunt ;  et  peculiarem  ilium  librum  fuisse,  colligas  ex 
tpM  Achilljs  dictionef  ev  r^  €-Ktypa<poft.€¥tf>  avrov  Kot^n"-, 
et  multo  magis  ex  ejusdcm  verbis,  ^A/xxTot  i^<?  tuv  ^rtpi  ^Xlov 

Tw¥  meKTe  «v  t^  €irtypa<poM^€rif  Kovort,  ubl  illud  ionji 
aep«nitum  significat  opus.  Nere  ante  Achillis  Tatii  aetatem 
exemptum  e  reliquo  opere  Canonem  et  seorsim  a  librariis 
scriptum  traditumque  esse  pute«,  Aratus  ipse  v.  46O  se  de 
pUni'tis  in  hoe  opere  non  dictunim  profitetur: 
OvctTi  ^ap(roX«o¥  Ktirtov  iyw  aptctot  tttff 
(nrXuvw**  tq  -re  vvicXa  to  t  aiOtpi  oijuaT  triaTmp. 
Owcrn  est  mom  Jam,  mom  ompHus,  «ut  ad  tenipus  prsecedena 
idatum.  aut  ad  mn  e/JftMM,  cui  alia  opponatur  res;  hie 
auleni  ad  rem  relatum  est :  *'  Aliis  argumentis  exsequendis 
ut  par  aim,  kmie  Jam  mr^Mmtenio  mom  aiMM  par^',  Itaque 
Aratus  quum  Pliaooomcna  cnndebat,  imparem  sese  Caoonis 
argumento  favus  est :  neque  is  hoc  potuit  in  codem  opere 
tnctarr.  nisi  ohloqui  sibi  ipse  rtdebat  Sed  postern  auctia 
viribuB  quidoi  «;^n^5Jtus  rem  fuerit,  cui  aeae  oiim  judicarat 
Bll|HRin  ?  QiMe  quum  ita  sint.  si  *A(rrpwrofft<  quod  probabilc 
dixerts  PbaenoiDena  et  Dioaeniae  compreheosa  fuerint,  quao- 
ritttr,  quid  de  quinto  illorum  libro  statucttdun  rideatur,  cujus 
■MUait  Trcues":  "A^ror  ^  «r  n*  a^aiii  rwr  *A<rrpucMr 
Twoiyai  Xr7«i  (Mowro),  Am  rao  otf^m  koi  IIXoiRnttB 
Mp^'  '^fX***  McXorv"*  BeXfvMv  nu  'A«*^  qu«  vetba 
GtMMtftw*  wetMBMi  kk  TVffvmi  udcgL  Qua  de  re  etai 
mU  pmwl  crrti  pmferri,  umeo  cnajidaa  Tartaem  caae  eorum 


De  Jrati  Canone.  107 

aliquem  secutum,  qui  Fhaenomena  et  Diosemias  in  quattuor 
diviserant  llbros'^,  in  calce  Diosemiarum  autem  perisse  epilogum 
quendam  carminiB,  qui  sit  quintus  liber  vocatus.  In  quo  quum 
de  Muds  dictum  fuerit,  Musarumque  Hdiconiarum  rebus 
conjunctus  at  Pegasus,  indidem  haustum  esse  potest  quod 
de  Pegaso  sidereo  equo  et  ejus  parentibus  ex  Arato  tradidit 
Hyginus". 

Scr.  Berolini  d.  ii.  m.  Jan.  a.  udcccxxvixi. 

>  V.  Onuert.  p.  338.  •>  Poet.  Am.  ii.  18. 


ANECDOTA    BAROCCIANA. 


The  scholars  of  tlie  present  day  have  been  so  indus- 
trious in  collecting  Aiiecdota  from  the  manuscripts  of  the 
continental  libraries,  that  little  now  remmn&  to  lie  gleaned 
from  that  quarter.  Our  own  too»  I  fancy,  are  pretty  nearly 
exhausted.  Yet  now  and  then  a  scrap  may  be  discovered, 
which,  if  it  contuins  unjjublished  remnants  of  the  great  clas- 
sical writers,  cannot  but  be  deserving  of  notice.  The  fol- 
lowing grammatical  etverpta  wepi  \^ap^api(Tfiou  Kat  ^\oi- 
KtfTfiotf  come  under  this  description.  They  arc  found  in  a 
Baroccian  MS.  of  the  Bo*lleian  Library,  No.  2I6.  f.  lOI, 
and  so  for  as  I  know  have  never  been  printed,  though 
they  mnv  oxist  in  other  libraries.  Valckcnaer  published  two 
Opnsctih  on  the  same  subject  at  the  end  of  his  Ammonius; 
but  ihej  are  very  different  from  these.  The  first  fragment 
here  jjiven  is  very  similar  to  what  is  said  on  the  same  sub- 
ject in'  the  Greek  Grammar  of  Theodorus  Prodromus,  a 
writer  M'ho  flourished  in  the  twelfth  century.  The  second 
may  perhaps  be  from  ITeriKlian,  whose  treatise  -jrepi  Syif- 
tmrwv  occurs  in  the  .same  MS.' 

T<3p  irepi  T-ds  Xe^e^  a/iaffTrj/iaTwy  a  t^ev  trepi  ftiav  \e^tv 
yiveTat,  w?  o  ^p(iapi(Tfi6^'  a  de  irepi  Xo-yoi',  wy  o  aoXotKia-tio^' 
a  c€  irepl  ^vaXKayijv  Xe^co*?  gi*  avvTa^ci,  ws  i)  aKvpoXoy'ui' 
\lapliapi<Tn6g  ea-Tiv  OMapryjfia  ey  (ai^  Xe^ei  wepi  tiJc  wap' 
€Katrrots  a-vvtj9eiav.  rherai  0€  koto  Tpoirou^  Tetrtrapa^'  €»■- 
0€ta*>*  "TrXtovaa^fxov'  fxcTaBeatv'  evaWayrjv'  ijrt^  avTtBetris 
fToXciroi.  Kara  fiev  ovv  evceiav^  eirt?  Xsyoi  AtmoaOive 
■^tDpit:  Tov  d'  Kat  yeypa^av  Kot  wtwo'iviKav  avri  tov  yeypa- 
(paaiv  Ka'i  ■jre'jroii^Kaaiv'  irejoJ  ne  TrXvovaafiov,  e'riv  Xfyci 
Airr)(ivtja  aw  Tip  a*   xat  eXeyoav  koi  €<f>epoa»  avri  tov  eXeyov 


■  ThLi  Mff.  ill  dwcribed  briefly  enough  in  the  Bodley  CaikIosuc  m  ".Srhedac 
uli(|joi  In^'rrfpinieno  variw  fannac  rt  arftumenii."  The  bent  put  howevtr  te  irriltcn 
on  paprr. 


Anecdoia  Barocciana. 


109 


K(ti  hpfpov  Kut  tfotfiacroi  xal  rTTf<pavovtFai  to  oevTtpav  va&tf- 
TtKOv,  ^or  Kotfi^  Kai  trTetJMvoi'  tj  etrt^  dtatpo'tij  /itj  koXo)^  (u^ 
KotXoUt  KoiXov.  Vlept  w  fxeTaa€(TiVf  einy  (pattj  KOTfuidtov 
Tov  KpoTatbov'  Kat  cp'iibov  tov  otdipov.  Ila^a  w  eraWaytiw 
ytve-Ttu  j3ap^pcrjuov  irfpl  tuv  Trpixjtficia^'  xai  ora**  erejoa 
aw  ertptjiv  -jryjoXajLipaiTj-ra*  ypafifiQTa'  olov  eiTiy  \e*y«i 
tpieXriV  Tiji-  <^ttXiji''  #cai  tfcXoi/  xi;v  J/oXov'  Aiksk*  Te  Kat  Awxta 
TTjy  ytvtKtjv  TOV  AikCicN/  Kol  Awriov  xai  ireTafieyoit  v€ov 
irtTowewi?*  Kai  f'tXafxrjVj  Kat  ov^  t'lXonrfv.  Wepl  oc  tos 
IT po<Ttf to ta^,  n fpt  fitv  TOW  Torow  etTiff  Xe'yot  jue r  0iXo¥ > 
^peOK  ce  trod>Qs'  'cai  irfpurirtu/xivayi  trawcwp,  f^apiofs  w 
OjD^JCcifi'.  TTfpi  cf  Tovs  ^^^coi/s,  t^Tiy  Toc  /ifK  /*?;  €yj'y«rofif*'"»' 
fft/wCTaX/uei/uw  apyov  Xeyet,  rtjv  ce  foXtv  eKrera/LLevait  Apyoi, 
ricerai  de  €V  ypaff)^  fioyrj  ^ap^purfio^,  urav  t«  t^ri  Kara 
TOV  T^i  op$oypa<pias  \oyotf  ypa<j>rf   oia  tiev  T^y  <(  ci(f>&6yyou 

T^F  Vt'lKTJv'    Ota    6e   flOVOV   tov    I    to   VlKO%'    tj    TO    €vK€<pa\o^    6id 

;  TOW  Vf  oXX'  ov  dia  tov  y.    liapfiapi^oviTt  ce  xat  o't  oXajs  e^^yXwy 
Tois  Xe^etrtv   rj  KaOoXou  virrjXXuyfjievai^  ')^pwfievot,  Kai  Xeyotf" 

TtV     TO*-     (TTlXXoV     flfV     TO     ypa(^i<TtOV,      Koi.    Kpa^fiaTOV      TOV 

'S.oXoiKKTfxOi  arrtv  fjfiapTttfxevri  Xefews'  truv^eat^  irapa  tiJm 
imp  €Ka(TTov  avv7j9eiav'  wt  ae  o  ^p^^ptatios-  rrepi  towt  /3a/>- 
/3a/70vc  fipTfrai,  ouTof  Kai  o  ffoXoiKiCfio^  irf^J  Toik  (toXo'ikow'  xat 
yap  ovTw  Tiwiy  •trpotrrjyopevtrav  Toi»y  yUtppapov^  t)  kotu  to 
€TVfxov  aoXoiKtiTHO^  etTTi  (Ttiov  Xuyov  a'lKKTfio^'  y'tveTui  oe  Kara 
TpoTTouv  TeiTaapai.  Koto  evoeiav  tos  evTtpo  oivoyrai  ircotmo, 
(II.  \i.  801)   evc€i  yap  9  oia.  rrpoSetTK.  koto.  -nXeovatrfiov' 

^ipji'  jQiwreirjv  ef  oupavoOev  Kpcfiaffatn-e^'   (II.  G.  19) 
irXeoya^ei  yap  »j  e^.      Khtu  de  evaXXa'yi;*'  'y/vcTot  coXowfiiT^oy, 
rjTot   oTav   nepoi'   Xoyov  avv     eTepov  TeuiJTat'    cJov — rj    ovrto 
TV)(oi  ovofAa  avTi  pijuaTOK' 

''Ov  T19  OKTTevaas-  ej3aXe»',  to^wv  ev  eiSur?'    (II.  A-  li>6) 
arrl  tov  To^eueiv.   ^  ovofta  avTi  ewtpp'^fiaTo*s' 

veov  0    etrayeipoTo  6vfxov'      (II-  O.  240) 
arri   tom   vewtrTi.   1/  jieTo^i;  arri   ptifMtTos' 

A'lvtiyi  oKTivetrfftv  eotKoTf^   rjeXioto'      (II.  K*  547) 
avTi  TOV  toiKafTtv-  tf  apSpov  avTt  ayraivvfutas' 

T^  "yap  eirl  fppea'i  GiJKfi>' 
««i  yap  TovTip.   »;   ap9poy  avTt  ewtpptifuiToi' 

T^    TOt    irpo<ppOVt:Qf^    fpfOi' 


no 


Jnecdota  Barocciana. 


avTt  Toii  dio.   rj  eirippjjixa  oirrl  wpo0€tTet*ii' 

Occrci  civrieti  etaw  d}^  evpea  koXwov'  (II*  $•  124} 
avrt  Tov  ets  evpea  (coXxoy.  »/  otov  to  tTv/x^€^r}KOTa  toi?  xov 
Xayov  fiepeaty  eiy  oXXijXa  eydKXdao'tjTai'  eioos,  yeyin^  aptOfios. 
71  orav  a'i  oia<popai  rtav  e-jripprjimToiv,  *i  a\  wpoOeirei^y  17  01 
tFuvceafAoi,  rj  a'l  rafc^v  twi'  avvcea-mou  evaWaa-awyrat,  etd<Kj 
ev  fjxv  oyofutTtj  *'o7a  ywaiAwv,^  dyTi  vtrepOeTtKov'  Kcd  **  fit- 
\avTepov  TjuTe  wiffffa,"  avrl  tou  diroKvTiKuv  tov  fieXav  aK 
iriatra.  ev  c«  avTaovv/Aiai^  cloov,  wy  Zi^voootos  ypatbuj  "jur^oi 
TraTpoi   <T€to,^    ai^xi   t^   <7oIo   «t»;tw^.     cv  ot-  apQpoiv  eJo«' 

Kai  0ojptJX'  o  yap  tjv  o*'      (II.  S.  +60) 
aiTi  TOU  OT   "yap   ^v  oi.   xat 

Mwov  o     oi  /iec  vvy  vyji;?  e'lprjfitvm  ecTTw"     (II.  0.  524) 
avTi    TOV   o  /ji«i/  rur.       1  evoV)    ev  fJJ6v   ovofiatxiv 

-\idn  ^nXv^  eovca-     (II.  *.  409) 
ain-i  TOV    9^\fta'    koi  ijdi)(  avTt  tov  ri^ia.    c»  ce  /lero^air 

Our  ay  e^'  uftereptav  oyewv  irkrjyevre'     (II.  0.  45.5) 
awTi    TOV    TrXifyeTaa*    duiittov.     Aj^m^/ios    Sc,    ey    ^ei*    oyoM'UT'*' 
"  Geo-wiay     VpauivTe'^     avrl     tov    Qeairuav'      KOt     "  fietctotvv 
P\oavpoici  TTpoatoiracTtv^   (0.  H.  212),  txprl  tou  TrpotrwTrq}'  xal 

AniPoTupov  Kvoo^  T€  Kol  ayXdtrj  koi  oveiap'   (Od.  O.  78) 
TO  yap  atx<liorrepov  eirl  ovo  Koi  ovk  eiri   irXeiovwy  Toairercu. 
ofio'twfi  ce  kqI  €v  toI?  aXXui^   tov  Xoyou  fAepetnv  e't  eyaXAatr- 
cotyro  ol  dpidfioi.      IXepl  oe  oY^fia  ev  dirTwwp.iai^' 

Zcayp^iTj  avTap  iywv  cjufi   XiJo-o^at*      (II.  K.  378) 
aPTi  TOV  e/iavTov  (TvuOeTov.     IlT^if,  ev  piv  ovofioatV 

IScfTTOploa  ^   6  tA£v  ovTaaev'      (U.  II.  Sn) 
avTt  TOU   }ie<TTopiowv.   Kai 

'Vpttxriv  Mey  irpopayi^ey'      (II.  F-  16) 
avTi  TOV   Tpuiwv'   KOt   **  fttfrieTa  Zcvy"   uvtI  tov  p,tjTteTffi.   ev 
/ucToj^aT?    TTTwaiSt    ** (KrTj&aTrxaiw    eviae^ia'"    (II.  U.  353),    aim 
TOV  dffT^a'TTToyTa  A:at  (pan'ovra*    ey  oe  avrwyv^aiv  Trrwcij* 

ijfiiv  S'  auTe  (caxeifXacr^)?  (piXov  v^op'      (Od,  I.  258) 
oyri  TOV  Tjpwv'  ev   oe  apSpoii  wTwcti' 

ootov%  o   ap  vwriKvde   9afiV0ifij 
E^o^oflcy  weipuwTai'  o  fi^v  d>uXirpy  o  0*  f'Xac'ifs:'    (Od.  E.  477) 
ayTi  TOW,   TOV  fiev  (hvXiri^t  tov  oe  eXaiij?.      Xlepi  oe  Ta?  eyKXi- 
oeis,   **iya  €'t^ofiev  afi<ptis"    (11-  A-  3fi3),  ovti   tou  clow^icy'    Kai 


Anecdota  Barocciana. 


in 


'Vl  'ion^i'  Aatuotcri  fia-)(r}<T6fi€t>ot,''''  (II.  M.  216)  arri  tov  /x^ 
ittiuev.  Aiadecret?  iv  pi^/xaaiv'  ^*  6(f>9a\(toi(Ttv  opw/aai^  (II.  N. 
*  99),  afTt  ToZ  opat.  AtaOeaet^  ei'  /iCTO^acs*  "  ttoXci?  ev 
Foier/iolffa?/"'  arri  tov  ev  vaiouevas'  Ktti  **  Kpea  iroXXa  Saio- 
/levofT  (Od.  P.  SSi^j  avTi  tov  ^aiwv  Kal  Mfpi^atv.  Xlpoa-wira 
ev  pt}natTiV' 

W\oi  y.€V  yap  xarre?  otroi  Oeoi  ettr   €v    OXufiTTM 
^i  T   €irnreiOovTat  teat  oeo/nificaOa  eKOffToy*     (H.  E-  87S) 
airrl    tov  eirtTretOoneOa    Kai    de^fitlfieSa.   Trpoctoira  ev  dvTtauv 
ftiati' 

Afvre  oi),  evverreTe  s^repov  iraTep  vtxveloxKrm, 

(Hcsiixl.  Op.  et  D.  I.  2) 
«KTi  Tw  UfitTepov.  -j^povoi  6C  p>ifjia(rtv' 
"eyw  5e  k  aya,  Bpic/iiSa'  (II.  -A.  184), 
avTt  TOV  ofat.  ev  oe  jtiexovaiv  \p6votf  **  toT<ti  o  avtOTa/ievoi 
fieTftpt]^'^  avTt  TOV  dvatrrd^.  '  Ev  oe  eirtppvuatTi  ylveTai  tro- 
XoivKT/iov  ovTws'  "Kal  e'itTto  ^pirov  cAoV/ta*^'  (Od.  H.  13) 
avTi  TOV  evcov-  Kal  **  eyyvSev  'itTTanei'oVf'^  avTi  tov  efyy\rS' 
€v  oe  irpodeaetriv'  "  eij  ' Ayaue/ivova  <)toi',"  avr't  toD  irpov 
Ayaftefivova'  roj  **vir6  Wtov  i/Xfioc,''  uvtI  tou  ewl  iXioi'. 
€v   oe   cvvoefffiot^ 

JxvTo^  pL(v  yap  eyw  pueveto   vtfttfv  ev  aytovif 
AXX*  erapov  tretiTrti}'      (II.  II.  2*0) 
dtfTi  TOV  eTolpav  ce-   Kot 

AXXa  KaKw^  d<p'teti  xparepov  t  ewl  fivOov  cTeWeV  (II.  A.  95) 
dvTt  TOV  KpaTepov  yap.    Hep*  Ttp'  evaWaytjv  t>;s  crvvTa^ews 
Twv    (TvucetFfiwv     y'lt'erat    ydp    (ToXoiKtCfios    ovtuk    wy    vapa 
Mevdv^ptp'* 

Bvydrpiov  tj  vvv  i^/iepa  oi^wtri  fiotf 
H    co^av^   tfTot  Oia/JoXvW 
e'XpV''   y^P   *i'^oi   Eo^av.    ij    ota/JoXiJi'.   rat/TO    oe    irnvTU   trnpa 
Toiv  iroiijTaty  (Tj^i/uara'  jrn0*  iJ7rofleff(i»  ce  ev  Xfopn  troXoiKta/iwv 
■rapeiXfjiTTat. 

\iapl^piafidi   etTTiv   dfidpTijua   ev  Xe^et    yevouevov   vapu 

•njV    Tmy  *  ^XXttVtCovTuiv    crvviiGetav'    etprfrai    oe    ovrtv^    (iapv- 

I  oiMNoTKruoi-  Tiff  mv.  ytPfTat  ce  TpovoK  e"  TrpoaOeaei'  a<patp€<ret' 

tvaXXayrj'   /leToBeffei'    Kal  wept  -Trpotrtooiav.  irpotride^ei  ypaur 

ftaro^^  w\  mv  tiv  Xeyt)  ' At(T\iv€ov.   oeov  Aitr^fVof.  a<patpea€t^ 

*  Thin  fnj^icnt  of  Mciiitnder  u  lo  be  ultled  lo  lho»c  iHkcn  from  unccrUtn  p1«y>. 


n« 


Anecdota  Barocciana. 


fiOTO^i  oiov  <:dt>  T(9  cpl<poi  ayri  tov  citPffo^.  fi€Ta0etJ€t  ypafi- 
fiaT<Kf  UK  KlariXi^,  oroi^  KlarjpK.  yivovrai  oc  ^apfiaftuTfiol  koI 
Vfpt  trpoaificiav.  ^\otKi{Tfio^  e<TTW  aKaraWtiXo^  Oeais  twi- 
TOW  Xoyov  fiefjiov.  elprjTai  t)e  uuXoikutho^^  rjTot  airo  Ttow  ei's 
SoXovc  neTotKtjaavTwv^  o'l  Trcipw^tevot  Trj  ^AtXwvtK  ')(ptja0ai 
ciaXeKTtfi  I'jfidpTavov'  rj  aVtl  tou  tov  (twov  Xoyov  Xv^iaiveaOat' 
tj  diro  TOV  dvXuTfiov  elfai  tov  XuyoV  tovt  citti  (TKoTurtiov- 
Vivttat  o€  TTcpl  TQ  n^pti  TOV  Xoyov,  xai  vepi  ra  -TrapETro/ici'a. 
TCfpi   TO.  yevt),   t09    \Lvpt7r'idri^' 

0    Kvirpts   toy   Tjoetn   Kat   fAoydtipo%^. 
irtpi  Tas  -JTTWfTeis,  ew  **w  ^1X05 •"  TTcpi  tou?  aptQ^xout' 

To    M6*'    T*    ^aj'pftJ,    TO    Oe    Tl    KOt    Xl/TTOVM^^O* 

I  If  pi  TO  ayj^fAOTa  aoXoiKt^ovaiv  ol  XcyovTes  ovay  pov^  Ta 
yap    ffvvQcTa  CK    SuxtpeaeaK   trpofpepoyTat    'Attikoi.    xepi    rd 

''Off  Oi^iVoui*  aTrajXcff',  Oiocfl-ov?  0    ifU*. 
jrepi  Touv  -xpdvov^' 

eytv  ce  k    ayto   Uptatjioa  KaXXnrapti<Toi'  (Tl-  A.  184). 
irepl  Tas  dtaOeaeis^  ws  vajja  llit'oaptj}^ 

KaXfiT    e$  j(opov    OXv/XTTiotf'^ 
dtrrt  {tov)  KaXeitrOf,  Trept  Tas  iykXtaeK  ws  trapa  KaXXi/xa^y' 


1  Thb  fVtgmeni  sppcan  to  b«  n«w.  I  will  tnn»cribe  two  otlien  ftlso  from  * 
Ilaroccuui  nianuscripu 

CihI.  RaitKC.  Ad.  'EkXoy*  itta0opwi>  Xcfiuv  irt»'i|\ry;i^i'«i'  ck  re  Ti;r  7/Mt^i)«  it.iil 
yiilf  Oipu^av  irfiay/ia-rtiiiv.  f.  307-      K^^)(t^ni  ^o'*"'*'!'   "Apiirro(^aVii« 'Opi-iirin'  ^tfix't^. 

We  ought  lo  lead,  ' ApiOTOKfnlvfi  'itpvunv  (v.  UBl.  Ed.  nekkcr.) 

Then  fol3om  the  line  from  Euripides,  which  prolinbly  refers  to  drrik' 

( "hucrobow.  Cod.  Buorc  5V.  f.  213.    'AVx^auiv^c   -rtl  ^f  i^AJv,  ■>«  -rafia  Bv/iiriilir 
*X*'  ">  XP''''"*  ff*'^''' "'^ "*  T^  i  tpv\d'rxti  tJ  «»•  Mf  tkifiiav  iw  xji  y«(ri(c^> 
*  This  line  probsbly  belongn  to  the  {Edipus  of  Euripidn. 

^  There  un  be  little  doubt  thm  thii  frft^ment  in  (he  firitt  ¥enio  of  th«  dlthrnmbie 
ode  of  which  a  connidcrable  extract  hu  been  preiMrrved  by  Diony»iu6  0t'  llklicaniUMii 
(det-'omp.  Verb.  t.  ii.  p.  4L  Ilud».];  hut  we  have  here  a  remarkable  variou*  reading, 
which  in  my  opinion  is  much  more  akin  lo  che  '''audacea  dithyrsmbi"  of  the  great 
Thebftn  poet,  than  the  commonly  received  tCKt,  ^ieir'  iv  xu^jv"  (t'raK.  I'ind.  Dith.  in. 
p.  4ft— IB.)  ^nie  .MSS.  have  'lirr  iv  )(">""•■  1  may  observe  by  the  way.  that  in 
another  FRi;;iiii:nl  frnni  the  dilliyraitibics  irf  Pindar,  preatrvcil  by  thr  Eiytiiol.  Magn. 
mid  .Mctctiiis  (1c  Nat.  llniu.  thr  llnmcrtAii  MS.  \M.  which  canlain^  the  fiteek  text  of 
the  latter,  trad*  fi^^yx"'  """fi  Pn»/o(xftii  I'lriixt*'  tiW''<Tfi\a, 


Anecflnttt   liaroeciafia. 


nn 


trptHrrwcTiKi^  titTi  T^   i)7roxaicTwcj;r  T^y  /xij  irtiji,      irep*  trpo- 
trwira  ws  ei-  atrrwrvfiiaii' 

tr<fi«T€pov  iraTep  vftvfiovirai'    (Hcsiod.  Op.  I.  9) 
suTt  Tov   vfiercpof.    irepi    Tat  fiertr^t^' 

OvK  av  e(p  tz/ierejcwi'  o;^aii'  trXtfyeyr^  jccjoauv^'     (II.  G.  455) 
otrrt   TOW   irXrjyettrat.    irvpt   to  ap&ptt' 

\iaKf}Oi<Ti  ^voTotat  to  pa  txd)  ctti  ff^i/erir  *ic«tTo.     (II.  O.  388) 
irept  T«s  irpoBsaeii' 

Kainrecro^  ei*   A^uMp.      (I!.  A.  593) 
jraJ  irapa  QovKvi>iotj'   **  ft?  to    H^cuoi'  €K(me<CovTo"^.  mil  weum 

Kadi^a'pci  Me*'  ecWT    ec^  ra   ov^tniiKa    (MS.  trturiffia). 

E^TTiariuov  av  Ttjv  atrirld    ««■  [rifitj    ^W9  ctoov 
Afe^jjKav. 
irepf   xa  €vinpt)(LaTa^  luf  "rrap     Ev^Trtdrj'" 

riuAAi)  fiev  €v  ^poTottTt  Kova  avwvvfitK 
0«x  KeKXtjMot   KvTrptSi  ovpavov  r    etrto' 


*  ThSa  pansge  i>  probbfalr  from  die  HecaU.  1  irill  lubjmn  Bttoe  addHionB) 
bmgtnvnts  from  the  satne  poet 

Afeln.  de  NaL  Iloui.  Cod.  Uarocc.  f.  'iid.    Tdv  it  tow  iut^pdyfiarm  vftiva  irtpl' 

v^^iwK»wf6iu'  n  -wdriyv  atwi  ram  wv^X^^  *"'  "'^"'^  «'«'Kc^I)t6«i*  iki  utmi  i  KaXXlftaX"^ 

"Ayvov  vi^i(WJ^(Mii  'rfi<ri  /i^fnjXr  irarvt. 
The  Latia  vcnion  reada  camiptif .  ^/hv  af  (m^wkV*"**  ''^'i  M^***^'  '>'<tfw. 

TheqgiKHt.  Cod.  Baron:.  50.  Cv\.  207.  'A^aiuV,  'A^iaj^ifvoc  X^rrai  ko)  d^ovviMav, 
•«  Vmpd  KaXXi/utJxT*  ^*''  ''^;ia^<>w  ni>^f><t  (««(>'. 

Clioerobmc.  ir^pl  iri>ff.fTtrro«  Cod.  B«rocc.  M.  f.  177.  T«  •!«  «■  X)|y<>i^<i  orifntva 
^MMrvXXojJa  -rcptmruf^ava  ^ui  rov  tiov  iriioa79>«tiM  oia  nrt  <(  ^i^foyyou  y^MJ- 
^Mrrai,  alov  ^vv  ^trot,  ovt,  avtXot,  ftvt  fkVflot,  "wait  ■waiXtiot  t^dVoc'  ^i  H 
'VpvoVcIi'at  fiff  (rrra  dir^  tov  civ  utrr,  i-wtiii}  ratrra  ^ic  tov  1  ypd'iitraC  o\op  ypavi. 
yiMitn  xai  ypifuK  va^d  KoXXinrtXf'  ^^yp^^ov  tiftax  i'xawo-a,"  T»irr'  iartv  ypa&t. 
Tlili  frspnent  occun  alitn  in  the  ¥.tynw>i,  Magn.  but  the  nanie  of  the  poet  is  not  men- 
ttarned  (p.  AOS.  SS). 

'  Hiepajwa^  here  referred  to  ia  fn  the  l«l  Book,  ch.  SS.  thvtb  ii  U-rrat  <riT9«- 
H^Mlvat  't  Ti>  'IlpaTov  iiiMBTo. 

*  Roth  (heae  ftBgmenta  arc  new.  For  ui  tccotmt  of  the  ^o<poAittx  of  Menander, 
•ee  Ifeinekc  Menandr.  R«l.  p.  UCI.  The  foUowbig  ciutkm  in  Batocc.  Mii<.  W.  f.  Sltl. 
JWijr  poasibly  be  aIbo  from  Mcnander:  XdXf^i^r  A-ri  T«i  xaXiw^n'  •r>yyN.R.' ^<n 
•o*  W  X«^»^  i  -rarrp. 

*  Tlic  openJnK  of  ihe  Hippolyttm. 

Vol.  I.  No.  4.  V 


114 


Jnecdota  Barocritma. 


dvTi  Tov  Eiwoi'.  wepl  Tot/y  avvoeafiout,  eav  tk  t^  fxev  Tor 
Ml?  iweyeyKti'  olov 
Tpwcrtv  fitv  Tponayitev  'iWe^av^pa  ^eoeiofjs-, 
V[apcaKir\v   wmoktii'  e^wv  Kat   Kafi-nvKa   rd^a-     (II.  T.  l6-) 
Oy  irtpiiTtTa  Xe^ei  (cai  vjreptj<papa ,  tj  awXm  afxerptiK  Xeyei^ 
(ToXodTi^ei  rw  TrXeofair/iffJ*  we  cc  koI  o  cttoirojv  a  /ntj  dei,  xat 
o    fAiKpoTTpe-Tr^s'    nai   ctti    t»;    eWeiN^et.   (ca<    o    ^/'tiwoficros   oe 
T^     efoXAa"y»;.     *raTxi     ytvm    oe    6    -r-pov    yvvatKa    ij    ircucia 
irotoufiCPO^   <Pt\fas%    o^eiXajc   tt^ov  avcpa^^  Kara    eloov  o  wo- 
Kopifffit}'  yjp(^ficv(yi   TTpos    oi/v    ov  oet,    tf  t<^   iraTpl  ctfv   covXif- 
xara   aptSfiov^    o   ttoXXci    /uei'  o(f)€i\wv,    otoovs  o   6\tya.   KOTa 

TTpOaWTTOVf     O      Tip     V<TT€ptf}    Trjv     TTpOTCpaV    CtOOVi     Tofir,     tj    TO 

avaTTCiXii/,    Kam    ■yfpovov,    o  e^w    Katpov    t\    iroiwi',    if    ^ijtw** 

xaTQ   oiaBeaiVj  luy  o    oo oi^fiXcoi'   eli^ai    ^rjTwi/*    i;    <p&oi'0¥ 

ij  SeiKlav  eiSa  p^yj  oe7,  ^  ai^/^i^o^froi'  e<p'  oh  ov  ^et,  aXXd 
Bpa<Tvv6fievov.  kot'  eyKXtffiVf  ws  o  TrpocFrdTTftJV  ed>*  of?  oei 
7ra/9aKaA€ti'.  KaTa  a^ij/ia  o  eiptavevofiet'o^  ij  vTroKptuojmetmi, 
Kol  o   cia(XTpe<pwv tjroi  top    AovKiauov   ijl/ew^offo- 

X0lKt<7T]JV... 

In  the  same  MS.  the  following  observation  with  regard 
to  yEschylus  occurs  /  l63 — 4.  BapetoTepu^'  dwo  riji  yevtxifv 
el'TTov,  (iapeajt  ^apewrepo?,  tncaviw^  fievrot'  Kai  6ti  A'tayyXo^' 
juci^otvuTCpos,  vTrepT€p<i}T€pa)^  T€,  Kat  ^epeioTcpo^,  koi  pt/iTepo^f 
Ktu  7rXeioT€po^.  w^  tie  hat  tov  owepOeTtKov  to  TrptvTtaTo^' 
*ci\avaav      en:   to  irpiuTta-Tov- 

In  MS.  Barocc.  35.  f.  24.  there  is  a  copious  collection 
of  Greek  adverbs  and  interjections  by  some  anonymous 
granunarian,  from  which  I  will  extract  what  relates  to  the 
imitative  particles  employed  by  Aristophanes"  and  other 
comic  writers. 

"*  This  ibauld  probabljr  be  qXarair.    The  foUowing  frRginmu  amy  be  wldcd  tp 
thme  already  icollccied  by  the  editors  of  ^1i:Kh7lut. 

Cod.   Barocc.   56.    A«£*tt  iK   tuS   Hvokvyou,   f.  284,  b.     Tonftopiijw*    (Cod.  -rop- 

TOpSapu^oirriav'  ncal  Aloxv\o9'  iTo»6tipv^tif  Taopov  Ptov^Payi*.     This  should  be 
'Eroviipif^t  •ravpo':  tit  vfov^ay^t. 

Cod.   BarocC.  Ifi9.    Rwifitpivfioi'  KnStSa'  >j    iTnya/ifipevvit  'rap'   Alax^^'p'     ^^ 
word  itriyd/ifiptvTit  is  no<  to  be  found  in  any  (ireek  lexicon. 

i>  The  BaiocdaD  MS.  &0.  auppllea  two  cltationn  fioni  Aristophanes  Thoognoot. 
Can.  ^SS.  £Tp«i^a(oc  6  'lEpnijt  wapd  tm  'Aptmtt'iiptt,   -wapii  ri  ittrrpdipOai  rat 

ChMTObosc  OrthogT.  f.  133.  Ail-wW  Xiyti  a  'Qpn  Sri  rdyra  tb  trapd  t6  Xghrm 


Aneciiottt  Barvcciarm. 


115 


[(rreov  oe  on  rd  fxecorrfro^  ewipprjfxarra  TraiToj^wy  Xc- 
•ycToi*  (fOT  fTToifOi',  ©roy  xaXt^y  aafpw^'  xaTa  yj^oyov,  oto¥ 
votijpw^y  a(je(iw^'  Kara  fuGTovciaVt  dtov  dvOptoiriK^i'  xot' 
€vtxXXaytiv,  otov  aXXtuy,  avTisK-  to  oc  citriV  dBpoltrcuK  wpttr/ie- 
vov  Tivo^,  otov'  •jrav^tjM^h  vaiwOt,  iravoiKi.  to  ea  eKTrXrjKTiKov^ 
TO  irXijM  €^ai^KTiffoi',  TO  wtrre  aVfxrraTixoi',  to  e/jtirootov 
ctaKwXvTtKot/^  TO  \a6pa  airoKpvjrriKov,  ava<bavCov,  dtappjjotjv 
tpLfPavTiKov'  (r)(€oov  ^latTTtxtFeio^'  odd^j  Xd^,  ttu^  opyavucd' 
crjXovoTt,  ^tfXaStj,  ijyovvy  i^rjyrjfmTiKd'  etev  ^ta(jaiht{TiKov' 
a/uiK'ye7r(i>«,  afivfyetrtj,  owoMTovVy  owm^otjiroTe^  owity^OT}TroTovv 
woffoTTyro^"  aopiOTOv  Kfil  TrotoTrtTtK  (riravttt}^,  fAaviffraj  uoytv 
axpatpertxa'  nevovvye  cKKorf^' 'HpaxK^i^^  AttoXXoi',  afl-or^ir- 
T£*:a'     EXXr/vicTTf   Kat  Ta  o^oia   €0viKa. 

To  ai  KoJ  ni  6privt}TiKov'  to  at  avrl  tow  OiPe  (COT  atro- 
Koirtfv'  TO  ai^o7  o-^erXiatr/ioiJ  nat  yapa^'  Troirot,  iroiroj,  iro^oi, 
iotj  tw,  iTtVj  iTtVf  o^t/Tovtoi  TrpodifpotfTCii  Kara   fii/itjcTii'  opveov 

^WVtji'  OjUOlOfV  TiOj  TlOy  TtO'  Ofio'tW^  Kol  TOpOy  TOpOy  TOpo, 
TopOTiy^'     OJUOlW     Kat     KIKKO^V,     KIKKQ^V'      TOpO,     TOpOy     TO' 

XtXty^'  no,  TtOy  Tiy^.  ttow,  ttou  'cm\  ^*a  T^f  «7rai'aX»;>//ti' 
T1JV  aiTowaiav  ^^Tti<Tiv  €fj.<l>aiv€i-  ttoI,  ttoZ,  e^'  d-rpcfjia^,  eirio"- 
3(CT  TOW  opofioVf  TTodaTrrJ,  eupa^,  iraTctf  €iri<f)Qeyfi€LTa  e'urt 
TQ^ea.  To  OTT  etrlpprj^xa  TrapaKeXevaews  ewl  tov  iravaaadat 
Ttfov  VTroOfoetiK,  ws  o'l  KonrtjXaTevovTfs.  To  ^a^am^,  ai*f- 
paTUva  TOV  ippoviittaTo^.  To  ffT/JijSiXwri'yf,  dtn-t  tov  ovoefiiay 
pavioa'  <TTpi^o^  KoXeTTat  tj  ofcTa  fioti,  XtKty^  ce  tj  Xe7rT»; 
<P^vtj  TOV  opviov-  To  TaTTti,  TOTTOTOc  Bprjvoi  eiffi  Tpaytjjcoi. 
To  iaTTOTaia^  Torv  xaKtav^  KOi  ioTTaTaJ,  tr^cTXiao'poi/-  To 
vmratral  €Trt<pwvTjfia  eaTt  vavTiKOV.  To  IxTraTrai  eirt  'tTrjrwv, 
To  /3a/3ai,  /:^/^m^  (r^6TXia(7TiKa-  To  oieia?,  (oeia  fxifitjna 
papl^dpwy  iXxoi'Ttov  ti.  To  <pv,  <pVf  eirl  Ttov  <pv(Ttairrwv  irvp. 
To  (ivf  /3v  eTT*  (Tiafjrtjs-  To  Tro-nral,  ir«7rai«f  o^ctXicw/io? 
ytpdvTwv-  To  Qy,  ay  fiifxrjfia  vXaicrovvTotv  Kt/vMf-  To  pvirawait 
/3oM/3a^t  aT^raTOi,  TaTTOTai  6Tri  Twr  aXYowin-wi'.  To  ^w,  jui*, 
«iri  TttJi*  tj^ovi-Tfov  did  fiVKTijpaiV'  To  iaTTTrairaici^-  To  pt/oi, 
cuoJ,  cwdi'  cxi  y'tKtj^'  Kat  €vd  x***/*'*  *"•  '^*'  **'  **  ewipptfiia 
«*nrX^^ca«  Ka!  wXfwieftK*    To  a)3dXc    erTX»;^6W9.      To   ^,    Vf 

&a  Tif*  at  ^t^^^Y"*'  yft*i<p*^at,  oloit  Xtiirovtvtt,  XttiraTtt^ta,  Xftvortf^ury,  \ttvo- 
<r-rfmT«i*v*  n  Hi  'Qpttyirtft  (Cod.  'n^dy^vtav)  ^la  -rww  r  Xty  y/Ml^oflnt'  cloii 
t\rw«»  wap'  tiit^ofllmwc  Xitritrp^itna  wapa  N«nrToW>»i[i-  tWiVfcv  -rap'  UviMptmrv 
Xrwtwrtviarwm  {XiwvmTiantt),  Xtttovavrat,  \fwora^io»  trap'  'Ap^aral^ilHl, 


116 


Aiiecdota  Baracciana. 


Ciuyira    tTvyKuradtriKov.     To   tiji    t^    TrpwKp^tyfia    KaTa<f>po- 
pouyrof.      To  'uo,  iv,  lov,  tov,  eiri  XvTnys'  to  iov  oa  ciri  j^a/jay. 

It  niigbt  be  curious  to  compare  the  iiiterjectional  particles 
here  collected  witli  lluise  of  other  languages,  in  order  to  as- 
certain how  far  nature,  which  is  said  to  suggest  such  excla- 
mations from  the  momentary  impulse  of  the  passions,  pro- 
ceeds according  to  any  general  principles  in  modulating  the 
accents  designed,  however  indistinctly,  to  give  utterance  to 
tbofte  padsioiitf.  In  pursuing  such  an  enquiry  however,  it 
would  be  necetisary  to  ditK-iird  many  interjections  as  alto- 
gether artificial  and  arbitrary,  and  no  way  originating  ^m 
the  action  of  spontaneous  feeling  on  the  organs  of  speech. 
How  artiKcially  such  particles  may  be  made  the  symbols  of 
feeling,  may  be  seen  from  tlie  fact  that  in  our  own  language 
many  are  borrowed  from  others,  such  as  ala^^  hurrah,  kuxxa, 
hoUa,  brave.  It  is  certain  ton  that  many  of  the  sounds  which 
accompany  any  bodily  action  or  energy  differ  greatly  among 
difl'crent  natiuus.  Thus  the  tones  with  wliich  our  coachmen 
and  carters  chide  or  urge  on  iheir  horses,  are  very  unlike 
those  one  hears  in  France,  Germany,  or  Italy.  The  same 
may  bo  said  of  the  sounds  uttered  by  our  sailors  and  arti- 
sans. All  these  therefore  muHt  be  classed  witli  iho&e  which 
are  purely  arbitrary.  Tliose  jKirticles  wlucli  are  strictly  imi- 
tative of  the  voices  of  animals,  and  other  »mnds  in  nature, 
will  of  course  offer  a  greater  appearance  of  resemblance ;  but 
OS  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  feeling  or  passion,  they 
cannot  throw  any  light  on  the  eiuiuiry  here  suggested.  I 
should  apprehend  that  natural  interjections,  if  they  exist  at 
all  in  a  common  form,  would  present  little  more  than  mere 
modulations  of  tlie  vowels,  or  at  most  different  diplitbongous 
combinations.  But  these  are  merely  hints  thrown  out  for  some 
abler  and  more  industrious  philologer 


The  cultivation  of  the  earth  has  led,  in  ages  and  natiuna 
the  most  different  from  each  otlier,  tu  the  growth  of  j>ecuUar 
social  relations.  In  a  large  part  of  Kuropf  these  relatiuns 
in  our  days  have  undergone  a  change,  brought  about  by 
violence  in  some  places,  in  others  ]>eaceahl\' ;  and  thus  they 
have  become  the  object  of  general  attention.  In  the  Roman 
state  under  the  Christian  emperors  such  relations  are  also 
found  very  widely  diffuKcd,  alongside  of  the  class  of  slaves, 
which  was  gradually  circumscribetl  and  supplanted  by  them. 
An  account  of  these  relations  of  the  peasantry  among  the 
later  Rfimans  will  not  bo  a  waste  of  labour,  since  hardly  any 
notice  has  of  late  years  been  taken  of  tEicm. 

The  sources  for  such  an  enquiry  are  to  be  found  partly 
in  the  Theodosian  code,  and  the  Novellie  belonging  to  it ', 
partly,  and  much  more  abundantly,  in  the  Codex  and  the 
Novelise  of  Justinian'''.  Important  assistance  may  also  be 
drawn  from  several  letters  of  Gregory  the  Greats  In  mo- 
dem times  the  authors  of  systematic  treatises  on  Roman  law 
have  scarcely   paid  the  slightest  regard   to   this  subject,   the 


>  Cod.  Theod.  Lib.  t.  Tiu  it,  Ifl,  II,  and  »bnvc  all  the  pamagc  lauljr  diKOTcred 
bjr  Pcjrran.  liib.  v.  Tit.  4.  ('oust.  'A.  p.  2114  in  Wcnck's  edilioQ. 

»  Cod.  JiiBt.  liib.  Ki.  TiL  47.  4».  60,  51,  '.2,  fi3,  fi?.  Nov.  M,  1A6,  1S7,  163.  .lut- 
liaiuil  eotiRt.  de  ulBrripdriis,  p.  671  ed.  (Jotting.  Justin!  coniL  dc  Ktiis  liberamitL, 
p.  tlji'    Tiberii  eaast,  de  fillis  colononim,  p.  ^'2. 

*  Lib.  I.  ep.  U.  Lib,  iv.  cp.  21.  Lib.  viii.  cp.  32.  Lib.  ix.  ep.  \9.  The  fim 
of  th«K  four  Icitvn  ronutnt  ihe  mml  information.  The  fourth,  which  ordcn  the 
tf-jnciioMa  cotoni  of  the  Kimiaii  churcli  to  pay  obedience  to  «  newly  appninted  df/nuor, 
i»  tncorpunlcd  almost  word  for  word,  witli  mciely  "light  altcraliMt»,  in  the  Liber  diar- 
HMs  Homawjrum  fxynJ^fitrum,  op.  fi.  Tit.  ft.  1  aiii  indebied  to  Nicbuhr's  fricnd»hii» 
for  my  ftcquatntunce  nilh  these  inotnictive  pasMgrt. 


US 


On  the  Roman  Coioni. 


causes  of  which  neglect  will  be  stated  further  on :  ami  even 
what  is  found  about  it  in  commentators  is  exc-ewiingly  meagre. 
The  writings  of  the  Glossatores  are  of  no  service  on  this 
topic;  for  they  confuse  the  whole  question  by  the  arbitrary 
and  unfounded  a^siuniption  that  there  were  several  kinds  of 
colonic  Cujacius  has  seized  the  main  point  correctly,  but 
has  not  followed  out  his  \iew  in  detail,  and  has  mi\t  it  up  with 
several  errours'.  Jacob  Gothofredus,  who  is  usually  referred 
to  as  the  principal  writer  on  this  subject,  has  merely  amnst  a 
quantity  of  materials,  without  doing  the  least  to  arrange  them ; 
the  utter  groumlkssness  of  his  historical  views  on  this  point 
will  be  spoken  of  lower  down".  But  far  more  unsatisfactory 
still  is  the  dissf^rtation  of  Heraldus,  who  formed  an  entirely 
erroneous  notion  concerning  the  condition  of  the  roloni ,-  and 
thus  even  his  interpretations  of  particular  passages  are  mostly 
wrong".  That  condition  however  has  recently  been  reprc^ 
sented  by  Winspeare  more  correctly  than  by  any  previous 
author*. 

The  names  used  to  designate  this  class  of  society  are  the 
following :  coioni,  Tusfici,  originarii,  adacriptitii.,  inqmiint^ 
trihutarii,  ceneiti.  No  precise  definition  of  these  terms  can 
Ik*  given  till  a  further  stage  in  the  enquiry. 

I  will  hegm  by  describing  the  social  condition  of  the 
class,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  our  works  on  jurisprudence,  and 
then  tack  on  some  historical  investigations.  For  the  former 
puqjosc  there  are  three  points  to  be  treated  of:  the  origin 
of  this  condition  with  reference  to  particular  iiidiviihials,  the 
HghtR  and  obligations  connected  with  it,  and  finally  the  manner 
in  which  it  might  be  utiaken  off. 

*  See  Pillius,  Siuntnft  in  ties  librM  (the  continnadim  of  the  Summa  oT  PlEcentiniuV 
— Axo  in  tiiii  ^'r/mma,  ind  Mn  C^mmcnury  on  the  Codex, — and  the  (ilusscs, — all  on 
the  abovecited  titles  from  Lhv  elcveoth  book  of  .'utttiiiiui's  (.'odvx. 

*  The  chief  paau^  ocrim  in  hin  rnmmenLary  nn  the  last  tlirce  booki  of  the  Codex, 
Lib.  XI.  TiL  47  (with  him  4B),  dp  affrieolin,  eapctnaJly  in  the  introduction  to  this  title. 
To  thU  add  his  UhacnratiDDei,  iv.  3B,  and  Conim.  in  L.  US  pr.  D.  de  Ic^.  I.  {<>pp. 
V.  ll>77<«3.  Neap-) 

*  Ad.  C'cd.  Theodoa.  Lib.  v.  Tit.  9, 10,  11,  cspcdaUy  paratit.  on  v.  9.    Amadu 
ad  Papianiim  Til.  4H,  p.  209,  nq.  ia  of  do  value. 

'  Qita««tioncs  (iuntidianac  i.  8,  9. 

"  8tam  degli  ahu*ti  feudali  T.  i.  pp.  lOS— 111.  Thif  mritct's  hatotical  viewawiH 
be  tpoken  of  hcrcaf^. 


On  the  Roman  Coloni. 


119 


A  person  might  hetfinic  a  coUmus  in  three  ways,  by  biVM, 
presrriptinny  or  agreement- 

Of  these  luTth  was  the  or<linary  one,  and  on  it  is  grounded 
the  name  orif^inariua*.  When  both  the  parents  belonged 
to  this  class  and  to  the  same  master,  the  condition  of  the 
child  was  not  liable  to  any  possible  doubt.  On  the  other 
hand  the  following  cases  require  a  more  specific  examination. 

The  father  might  be  a  coionus,  the  mother  a  slave,  or 
conversely.  In  such  cases  everything  was  determined  by  the 
class  of  the  mother '",  as  well  with  regard  to  the  condition 
of  the  child  generally,  as  to  the  possible  rlaims  of  different 
masters,  if  such  could  be  brought  forward.  From  the  ex- 
pressions in  Justinian''s  constitution  one  might  supjmse  that 
this  rule  vas  first  laid  down  by  him ;  which  however  is  very 
improbable,  inasmuch  as  according  to  the  oldest  principles 
of  Roman  law  it  is  scarce  |)ossible  that  the  matter  shouUl 
ever  have  been  decided  otherwise". 

Or  the  father  might  be  free,  the  mother  a  rolona.  The 
children  then  in  all  age»  were  coloni,  and  belonged  to  the 
master  of  their  mother". 

Or  the  father  might  bo  a  mlonus,  the  mother  free.  The 
law  on  this  case  underwent  many  changes.  Before  the  time 
of  Justinian  the  child,  following  bis  father,  became  likewise 
a  coinnus  ";  so  that  in  this  and  the  preceding  case  the  rule 
■was  the  same  as  among  the  Germanic  nations  with  regard  to 

*  Or^naritiM,  L.  un.  C  Theod.  tie  inquiUnis  (v,  10).  L.  7-  C  J.dci|:Tic.  (xi.  -I?)* 
Oriffiuaritu  cotvnui^  L.  II.  C.  J.  He  a^ic.  (xi.  47).  Catvnttx  oriffinalit,  h.  tin.  C. 
Tbeod.  de  InqalL  (r.  10).  OriginaliM  eolontUy  L.  i.  C.  J.  tie  agric.  H  manctp. 
(«.  67). 

"  L.  31.  C.  J.  de  agrie.  (xi.  4?)  :  Matris  suae  v<ntrrm  le/juittur. 

<■  Ouus  Lib.  I.  g  6fi,  «7,  80.  tHpiaii  Til.  A.  §  a  It  U  true  thai  Oaiuii  (§  8S~84] 
ciuft  certUD  express  exccptian<i  to  the  principle,  tliat  the  children  of  pnrentK  who  had 
no  MMuuAitMM  werf  to  follow  rhe  mntKer :  but  no  such  exception  ts  mentioned  in  the 
tonatitutiou  o(  Justinian :  un  the  contrary  it  scenis  to  ah6um«  that  ihc  point  hitherto 
had  been  wholly  undcieniiined,  and  that  thi*  could  not  be  allowed. 

I*  b.  on.  U  Theod,  de  imiuiliniB  (v.  10).  L.  IH.  31.  24,  C.  J.  dc  agrk.  (xi.  47). 
1*.  4.  C.  J.  de  hgrie.  et  nitncip.  (xi.  (J7).  Only  In  caic  the  father  was  bound  to  any 
t«wn  or  eorporation  by  a  special  obUgation  of  service,  the  children  were  to  he  divided 
for  the  ttrvt  forty  yean,  but  not  afterward.  I^  iFl.  Theod.  dc  his  qui  condlt.  (xii.  19). 
Thia  wu  not  incorporated  in  the  code  of  Justinian.  [7*hc  words  in  the  Theodoaian 
toAt~-g*d  tamen  intra  hcs  pnrime  qutulraginta  annot  docebHntttr  fuiite  wiucrpH 
^Mcm  rather  ut  mean,  Uiii»f  teho  hart  bten  bom  wilhin  the  hst  /ortg  years :  and 
thii  woald  be  a  more  reuofuble  limitation.  J 

*>  N«T.  U,  ft. 


130 


On  the  lioman  Coiofii- 


similar  rdatidus,  that  the  child  followLfl  th^  bawr  blood ''. 
Justinian  alxilisht  this,  and  at  first  declared  the  child  to  be 
perfectly  free :  only  he  gave  the  master  of  the  husband  the 
right  of  com{x^lHng  him  to  separate  froni  his  wife "  Sub- 
sequently he  subjected  this  fretdoni  of  the  children  to  the 
following  restrictions;  they  were  to  be  capable  of  holding 
property  of  their  own,  but  were  to  be  |)erdonally  bound  to 
remain  on  the  estate  to  which  tlieir  father  belonged,  and  to 
till  it,  unless  they  wanted  to  settle  on  and  cultivate  an  estate 
of  their  own,  which  he  aIlowe<l  tiieni  to  do  ".  In  a  still  later 
constitution  he  deprived  the  children  even  <^  this  limitc<l  trec- 
dom,  and  reduced  them  entirely  to  the  condition  of  cohfU  '\ 
Not  long  after  howevw  this  limited  freedom  of  the  children 
was  assumed  in  certain  constitutions  of  Justin  II  and  Tiberius 
as  notorious  and  prevalent,  without  mention  oi  the  later  severer 
ordinance  of  Justinian'". 

Fourthly,  both  parents  might  be  colonic  but  in  the  servic* 
of  different  nMsters.  That  in  this  case  the  children  also 
would  be  cohni  eould  not  be  questioned  ;  but  to  which  of 
the  masters  they  were  to  belong  was  a  point  which  was  never 
permanently  arranged.  At  first  the  master  of  the  mother 
was  to  have  s  third  part  of  the  children''.  Then  all  of 
them  were  assigned  to  him*".  Lastly  it  was  settled  that 
each  of  the  two  masters  should  have  half  the  number  of  chil- 
dren, and  that,  if  the  number  was  an  odd  one,  the  larger 
half  should  fall  to  the  mother's  sliare"'.      In  direct  opposition 

I*  Eirbhant  Dcuuche  Siaats-und  RechuKcachichte  f,  §  60. 

■>  L.24.  C.J.  lie  a|{ric.  (Kt.-17};  confinneO  in  Nov. M.  pr.  ('.1,  aiUy  witliaftovln 
against  Iih  acting  recn»pectiv«ly.  8ubseijuuitly  th«  nukniaffe  waa  ev«i  dechnd  to  be 
invalid:  Nov.  22.  C.  17- 

•■  Nov.  im.  C.  2.  "  CotML  de  adsciipHtliB. 

■■  Juttini  const,  dc  tilus  Ubcrarum.  Tibcrit  const,  de  HliU  colimorum.  It  is  dJffU 
cult  to  Diakeout  the  exact  relation  between  these  contradictory  ordinancen.  Cuj«cita 
{Obftcrv.  ir.  "-X]  aMumCM  that  .TustinJan's  last  cnniitituiion  wax  never  ncinally  intn- 
duced  ;  aad  by  tli«  help  nf  this  ■upponinon  all  tnay  be  ex.pLalned  very  easily. 

"  L.  En.  C.  Theod.  dc  inquiliiuH  (v.  ID), 

•>  L.  3.  C.J.  ut  n«mo  {xi.  ilS), 

*'  Nov.  1C3.  C.  3.  Nov.  166.  The  numt  questionable  luunage  ia  U  13.  pi.  C.J. 
de  agric.  (xi.  47) :  DetinJmui  ut  Inter  inquilinm  c!nl^nollV(^_AUsrepti  libcri,  vel  ulrogiit 
vet  ttfuiro  parenie  ceiuito,  itatum  pntcrnae  conditioQiK  a^noscaut.  Kven  the  text  ia 
doublTul.  Pilliuii  says:  Htrotjur  pareate  ceofiito  iW  M/(ro(utro?}  i.  o.  allero — .Sed  in 
multU  codidbuD  invent  vti  neulro,  quod  HubtUioribiiii  relinquo.  Azo  tn  hia  cotoniai* 
tary  on  this  passaf^e  rtmarki:  in  IJbro  M.  (.^tnniot)  dccni    vet  utrmpir.     The  ^kaa: 


foman  Cofoni. 


find  another  ordinance  of  Justinian,  aceordin^f  :u 
mnnter  of  the  husband  was  authorized  to  keep  all 
the  children,  and  even  the  wife  too:  this  ordinance  however, 
the  date  of  which  is  uncertain,  was  nothing  but  a  local  regu- 
lation, as  CujaciuR  has  rightly  px|)laine(I  it,  nor  was  it  to 
bo  more  than  temporary  i  that  in,  it  was  not  to  hold  good 
as  A  permanent  rule  for  the  future,  but  only  for  the  mar- 
riages Bubsistinj^  at  tliat   very  time". 

Hy  pn'xcriptum  the  condition  of  a  ro/onwa  was  determined 
in  two  distinct  ca^eg.  First,  if  a  free  man  lived  for  thirty 
yeorii  as  a  colomis,  the  owner  of  the  estate  thereby  acquired 
a  right  of  mastership  over  him  and  his  posterity :  he  enjoyed 
important  privileges  however  with  regard  to  properly,  which 
were  likewise  inherited  by  his  children,  and  the  nature  of 
which  will  be  explained  by  and  by".  Secondly  the  [wssession 
of  a  cohnus  belonging  to  another  person  was  secured  after  a 
stated  time  by  prescription  against  the  claims  of  his  original 
master  :  this  rule  too  cannot  be  made  quite  clear  till  further  on. 

With  regard  to  a  pcrson''s  becoming  a  coUmus  by  a  volun- 
tary agreement  the  following  regulation  was  originally  laid 
down.  Free  men  or  women  were  to  become  eohni,  if  they 
declared  this  purpose  in  court,  and  at  the  same  time  con- 
tracted a  marriage  with  a  person  belonging  to  that  class. 
This  was  ordained  by  Valcntinian  IIP'.  Neither  this  nor 
any  other  specific  regulation  touching  such  an  agrwment  was 
adtnittcd  into  the  code  of  Justinian  ;  so  that  one  might  imagine 
that  he  meant  it  no  longer  to  hold  good,  that  is,  that  no 
one  was  thenceforward  to  becouie  a  colimus  except  by  birth 
or  prmcription.  Nevertheless  there  is  a  coustitutiun  of  his, 
which,  although  it  sccuis  to  liave  another  object,  may  al  the 
Mme   time   have  been    drawn    up   mainly    with    reference    to 

at  UtrvfUe  1.  «■  fcltero — »ln  hftbmt  fft  utroqw  t«l  nrutro.  Holnindcr  rend*  allerulm 
iiwf I  id  of  neutm.  The  best  wiy  huwcvci  i>  to  lic<]>  iW  iwatro^  antl  lo  kdojrt  Oie 
MlevlB([  txpbuuUAD  idvcn  hy  (!aj«eiat :  if  both  the  pArentii  were  ecJoni,  the  dlildren 
twuin  M)  llk««-wft,  wliflthcr  the  parentii  <rerc  ertiMti,  ihst  )■,  liable  to  pay  taxM  (lee 
belawnotcs  KA,  90),  orncK.  The  word*  pntrr  %a  conriitio  ttuijr  now  be  intrrprtrred  Id  mean 
the  dana  of  the  parema  gencnU)',  without  specific  rtfpranu  to  the  claim*  of  the  two 
tttmttn. 

"  Xor.  Iff?'    See  CiijarmMM  ewnmentary  on  iL 

"  L.  lit.  C.  J.  (Ic  A};r)c>  (xi.  47)'  eocl>  Alit^t«mpor«  tnginta  iuinc*uni  eoloQt 
Inu,  liherati  nian«ni«»  cum  rebus  9ui«.    L.  33.  <^  I.  toA.    See  below  p,  I3S. 

'*  Nov.  Valtntlnlani  TiL  9. 

Vol.  II.  No.  4.  Q 


132 


On  the   Roman   Colonl. 


such  an  agreement*^.  This  constitution  speaks  of  the  evi- 
dence requisite  to  shew  that  a  person  is  a  cotonus,  and  enacts 
that  a  single  proof,  such  for  instance  ae  a  written  contract, 
an  aclinowlcdgement  in  court*  a  registering  in  the  tax-books, 
should  not  be  sufficient,  hut  that  there  should  be  a  com- 
bination of  at  least  two  such  proofs.  Now  what  is  here 
spoken  of  as  evidence  for  the  previous  existence  of  such  a 
relation,  might  without  doubt  be  employed  as  a  form  of 
agreement  when  a  free  man  wanted  to  enter  into  it  for  the 
first  time :  for  if  he  concluded  a  written  contract,  and  after- 
ward signified  his  assent  to  its  substance  before  the  court, 
the  law  was  fuUy  satisfied,  and  he  could  not  withdraw 
himself  again  from  his  dependence.  Indeed  this  process  may 
perhaps  have  been  the  real  object  of  the  ordinance ;  and  it 
may  arise  merely  from  an  inaccuracy  of  expression  that  the 
proofs  appear  to  be  the  only  things  spoken  of. 

The  rights  and  obligations  contingent  to  the  colonua  were 
of  three  kinds:  some  related  to  his  personal  condition,  others 
to  his  connexion  with  the  soil,  others  to  his  property  and  taxes. 

As  to  the  personal  condition  of  the  coionif  they  were  free, 
that  is,  distinct  from  the  slaves;  but  it  \m questionably  bore 
a*  great  resemblance  to  that  of  the  slaves.  That  they  were 
distinct  from  the  slaves,  is  proved  by  the  following  evidence. 
In  several  imperial  constitutions  they  are  mentioned  along 
with  the  slaves,  and  by  way  of  opposition  to  them*.  In 
others  they  are  expressly  declared  to  be  ingenui  ^',  We  find 
too  that  they  were  held  capable  of  contracting  a  real,  genuine 
marriage^,  which  slaves,  it  is  well  known,  were  not *^.  The 
some  thiug   is   implied  in  the  punishment   with  which   they 


»  JL.  32.  pr.  C.  J.  de  agric.  (xi.  4.1). 

■*  L.  31.  C.  J.  de  Bf^c  {xi.47):  Ne  diutins  dublletut,  ti  quU  ex  adacripUtla  et 
Ubero,  vcl  ex  adfcriptitia  el  fervo,  vel  adtcriptitto  et  aneilla  f\uMet  editiu,  etc  Com- 
pare  L.  7.  C.  cod.     Nov.  Valem.  Tit.  ». 

"  L.  on.  C.  J.  Ac  rolonU  Thracenalbus  (xi.  61):  Ip»j  quidem  originorio  jare 
teneaniur :  et  licet  e^ttditiime  xndeantur  iugenuiy  sctvi  tauicn  tczne  ipuus,  cat  oati 
Buat,  cxistimcntur  etc. 

"  L.  ii.  C.  J.  dc  agric.  (XI.  47>.    Not.  Valent.  TlL  9. 

»  L.  A.  §  1.  D.  debonia  dxiiiruiMmim  (xLViii.SO]:  Nam  earn  libera mulirr  trma* 
neat,  nihil  prohtbet  ct  virum  warili  afffttionem^  «  muUerem  unrU  animum  retinere. 
CoMcquemly  a  slave  could  not  posiibly  be  In  a  (Ute  to  fulfill  thii  primary  condition 
of  all  marriages :  Nov,  22.  C.  10.  Noa  didmus  solvi  roatrimonium  scd  ab  ipM  iniiio 
Deque  matrimotkiuni  fieri. 


On  the  Roman  Cotont. 


123 


[ivcre  threatened  in  case  of  their  ruDoinfif  away ;  they  were  to 
i2>e  put  in  fetters,  and  treated  as  a  punishment  after  the 
manner  of  slaves^;  which  expression  clearly  dcinonBtratcs 
that  they  were  essentially  distinct  from  slaves.  In  Gregory 
the  Greafs  letters  too  diis  essential  distinction  between  the 
two  classes  is  establisht  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner^'. 
Several  Jews  in  the  town  of  Luna  were  possest  of  Christian 
slaves.  For  these  slaves  Gregory  commissions  the  bishop  of 
Luna  to  procure  their  freedom,  as  was  enjoined  by  the  laws": 
if  however  they  Irnd  been  employed  in  agriculture,  they  were 
to  continue  on  the  estates  as  eoloni.  But  should  the  master 
of  such  a  colonu^  endeavour  to  remove  him  from  the  estate, 
or  to  reduce  him  to  domestic  service,  the  mlcnus  was  to  be 
perfectly  free ;  since  his  mafiter  would  now  have  lost  his 
right  of  property  by  the  general  enactment  of  the  laws, 
ad  have  forfeited  the  jns  cohnartum  by  his  own  arbitrary 
IpFoceeding. 

But  on   the  other   hand    the  freedom    of  the   roloni  was 

[to  limited,    that  no  doubt  it  bore  a  great  similarity  to  the 

'  condition  of  the  slaves^\      This   similarity  is  acknowledged 

in    general    terms    in    several    passages**.       Hence    they    arc 

[led  servi  terrae^i    and  the  term  iUteri  is  now  and    then 

fused  in  opposition   to  the  coloni,  as  well  as  to  the  slaves™. 

[*hey  were  liable  like   the  slaves   to  corporal  punishments''. 

In  like  manner  the  rule  which  prevailed  witli  regard  to  slaves, 

that  they   should   not    bring   an  action  against  their  master, 


*  L.  1.  C  Th.  de  fu)(iu  coloni*  (v.  9) :  IpwM  etism  colonoc,  ijui  fuftun  DiedJUn. 
Utf,  M  terrilem  rufuhiMnrm  ferro  1if[Bri  coaviuiiet,  ul  nfRcta  quse  liberis  congmunt. 
tneriio  nervilia  condptimKiioniJi  conipcllKtitur  imjilere.  (iothofmli].'!  «rplainji  the  irordii 
jn  sermiam  eonditionrm  very  carttaXy  hy  itutar  Miervi. 

"  Lib.  IV.  Ep.  21. 

*»  Theac  Uwii  are  foand  in  Cod.  JnsL  Lib.  i.  Th.  10. 

"  UdnccduBdcspatthc*  this  whole  aiquiry  very  briefly  (Antl^.  lah.  i.  Tit.  S.  g  8), 
by  prononnciog  wlcbout  more  ado  that  the  rt}timi  were  hUvcs,  merely  menuoning  by 
tbf  by  tlut  several  peraoQS  bad  entertained  doubu  on  the  point. 

■*  1^  21.  r.  J.  dc  agrie.  (xt.  47):  Quae  enim  differentia  Inter  •erTOsetadxcriptilkm 
inteUigatur,  cum  uierque  In  domlai  nui  positus  nit  poiottate.  L.  3.  C.  J.  in  qaib. 
eunb  cokmi  (xi.  49) :  pene  eat  ut  quftdam  dediti  servitute  videanlur. 

•  See  the  preceding  and  the  4M  notes. 

■  L,ai.  C.  J.  d#agric  (xt.47}.  L.  18,  L.  23.  pr.  Ij.  34.  end.  Sometimes  loo  lhl« 
cxprtmion  is  used  (i>  dcsiKnaic  a  freer  class  iinion(t  ihc  cohni  ihem»clve«,  a»  dininijuisht 
boat  the  leaa  free :  on  thin  paint  1  nhali  iipeak  lower  down :  «ec  note  Sfi. 

"  L.  AS.  «4.  C.  Thcod.  dc  haereUcis  {xvu  S).    L,  W.  C;.  J.  de  agrir.  (xi.  47). 


124 


0»  the  Roman  Cohni. 


was  exteuded  to  thcui :  twu  exceptions  liuwever  were  inadu 
to  it,  in  custi  of  ou  arbitrury  raising  uf  tlieir  reut  {iiuperexnciut)f 
and  if  they  wanted  tu  atxuse  llieir  ma^iter  uf  a  crinie^.  What 
is  still  more  remarkulile,  even  the  principle  that  a  runaway 
&lave  waii  regarded  as  a  tliief  of  his  own  jierstui  was  applied 
at  one  time  to  tbeiu^:  which  application  certainly  seems  to 
be  at  variance  with  the  recognition  that  they  were  htficnui, 
but  can  he  ilefended  by  analogical  cases  in  the  old  lloman 
iaw'^  The  relation  iKirne  by  the  lord  of  the  estate  to  the 
cohni  was  designated,  in  the  want  of  a  peculiar  technical 
term,  by  the  name  po/ro«u«". 

The  relation  of  Uie  colontm  to  the  aoil  consisfted  mainly 
in  hie  being  iudissolubly  attacht  to  it»  so  that  lie  could  not 
be  s^Ntraled  from  it  either  by  his  own  act  or  by  bis  master**. 
Consequently  if  a  eoionus  quitted  an  estate,  the  master  of 
it  might  lay  claim  to  him.  This  claim  might  be  maintained 
against  any  other  landholder,  should  the  cohnua  liave  settled 
on  his  estate";  and  tlie  landholder,  if  he  was  aware  tliat  he 
was  detaining  hia  neigblionr's  cohmus,  had  to  pay  a  consider- 
able Hnc".  Or  it  might  he  maintained  against  the  cohnua 
himself,    if   he   was   living  as  a   free   man.      No    rank,    no 


**  L.  3.  C.  J.  in  ciaib.  rutsiscolonl  {x].  4t)).  They  were  allowed  indeed— Mappeara 
from  L.  «n.  C.  Theotl.  lunimvi  (iv.  23),  L.  20.  22.  C.  J,  dc  agric.  (xi.  4/)— lo  hring^  J 
an  action  on  the  quexcioD  whether  (hey  were  CTi/oni,  and  whether,  whai  wm  onnMtad  ' 
with  that  tjucstiou,  thw  citats  «a>  their  piopeRy  or  tSe  Tiijuiler*»  :  bill  this  wa«  no  pera- 
liar  privilege,  inasmuch  as  the  sUvca  also  boil  always  had  die  liifcrale  Judiciiun  ppeo 
to  them. 

1"  L.  23.  pr.  C.  J.  de  a^c.  (xi.  47) :  Seenndum  exetnpluni  leiri  fiigitiri  aae  dlu. 
tiuis  inxidits  fiinri  intelUganir. 

*°  iiaius  Lib.  iii-  §  I'M.  §  9.  1.  de  obL  nuac  ex  da),  (i*.  I.) 

*■  L,  uo.  C.  TbcofL  etc  cdIodus  (v.  U).  The  uamo  dominwi  and  /HhurMor  indeed 
are  also  found  :  these  denote  however  iwt  Ikia  pcnuual  rcluliuii  (u  the  colaniUy  but  hia 
ownership  of  the  Htate,  on  vhL<^,  it  ii  true,  that  reUtion  wan  dqinidcnl. 

*^  L.  un.  (-'.  J.  de  col.  Thrac-  (xt.  01)  :  Mrvi — teirac  )p«iiis.  L,  l^  C  J.  deafr^e. 
(xi>  47) :  glcbis  iahatrere  praecifinnu.  One  must  not  however  take  this  indisoolubte 
attachtneoi  too  literally.  lu  puxpoae  wu  only  tu  prerent  a  pemtaneni  change  of  abode 
and  employment:  mere  Ujtemipiiona,  even  tiw  a  coi»*ider«ble  period,  were  pennlited, 
•4  least  if  the  miisier  did  not  object  to  then.  Thus  lur  instance  OTCfjory  th^  Ureat 
(Lib.  VIII.  Ep.  32)  speaks  of  a  coiontu  wlui  had  been  wnrkin^t  for  three  years  in 
building  a  church  at  Cuanca;  and  hia  abwnce  from  (ha  eatsie  is  aasumad  to  be  pcrw 
fectly  allowable. 

«^  L.  1.  C.  Tbeod.  de  5iint.  ooL  (v.  9).  L.  un.  C.  Theod.  do  Lnquiljnia  (v.  Itt). 
L.  6.  L.  3a.  §  2.  C.  J.  de  a^ic  (xi.  47). 

«•  L.S.  ('.  Theoddcfiipi.  coJ.{v.a).  U  l&  C.  J.  deaffric  (xl  47)^  L.  tin.  C. 
J.  de  coL  Thrac.  (xi.  »l).    L.  L  L.  J.  dc  roL  lUfr.  (xi.  6S).    L.  3.  C.  J.  de  ftwit. 


On  the  Roman  Cohni. 


125 


dignity  coiili)  protect  hiin,  not  even  the  having  enlisted  as  a 
soldier  **.  As  to  what  regards  the  clerical  order,  at  tirst  the 
only  rule  laid  down  was,  that  no  colonns  should  be  ordained 
except  in  hi»  native  place,  and  that  he  should  continue  to 
pay  h)»  puUtax  hin1Kelf*^  Afterward  his  ordination  was  made 
dependent  on  the  cunsent  of  his  master,  so  that,  unless  tlte 
master  had  given  it,  he  might  demand  his  coivttus  back  out 
of  the  church,  and  in  like  manner  out  of  any  monastic  order*'. 
Finally  Justinian  returned  to  the  origijml  rule,  and  allowed 
the  colonus  to  be  ordained  in  his  native  place  even  without 
his  master's  consent,  but  obliged  hun  to  continue  to  discharge 
his  obligations  on  the  estate*".  The  episcopal  office  according 
ta  Justinian''s  ordinance  gave  a  colonus  his  fidl  freedom  *"*. 

Uut  on  the  other  hand  the  master  also  was  not  allowed 
to  separate  the  colonus  from  his  estate.  Pic  had  indeed  an 
I  Absolute  power  of  disposing  of  him  along  with  the  estate,  but 
none  at  all  without  it".  Such  a  sale  was  null:  the  seller 
nught  redcmaod  his  cohnus;  and  the  purchaser  lost  his  pur- 
chase-money :  this  was  to  be  the  case  even  if  a  small  piece 
of  land  was  given  into  the  bargain  at  the  sale,  for  the 
purpose  of  evading  the  law^^  By  an  ordinance  of  Valen- 
tinian  III  however  the  exchange  of  one  coiontts  fur  another 
was  allowed**:  but  this  did  not  find  its  way  into  the  code  of 
Justinian.  In  like  manner  a  landholder  was  further  pro- 
hibite<l  from  selling  his  estate  and  keeping  hack  the  coloni^. 
On  the  other  hand  a  person  who  possest  several  estates,  if 
there  wus  a  superabundance  of  coloni  on  one  of  them,  and  a 
deficiency  on  another,  might  remove  a  portion  of  them:  and 


,  col.  (xT.  83).    The  highest  of  thcae  fineti  prevailed  tn  Tbncc:  It  unounted  to  two 
icTgotd. 
•  L.  8.  U.  C.  J.  dc  agric.  (xi.  47).     h.  I.  3.  V.  J.  de  ftijflL  eoL  (xi.  W). 
•«  U  33.  <;.  Th.  dc  episc  (xvi.  3)  :  that  U,  I*.  11.  C.  J.  de  epfac.  (l.  3). 
^^  I».  1ft.  L.  37.  pr.  C.  J.  de  epUc  (I.  3). 
«  Nov.  123.  c.  17-  "  Nov.  123.  c.  4. 

L.  7'  C:  J.  dcspic  {XI.  i7):  Origiuarios  abs<]ue  terra — vendi  onmifEriun  ood 
bit.  L.  31.  eod.    Et  pouJt  (dominiLa) — adsmptttium  eum  tarrm  dominio  loo  at* 
ryilkR.     Not.  Valeiit.  Tit.  D. 

«  L.  7.  C.  J.  dc  aKTic.  (xi.  47). 
'  Km.  VKlenl.  Tit.  9. 

'  Ik  8.  C  J.  doa^c  (XI.  47):  Si  quia  pmedium  rendere  volueril,  vel  donan, 
^miaere  »tbi  Irusfenndo*  nd  alts  loi-n  colonm  privain  poctionc  nan  powlt.     It  it  the 
uoK  paUBKCU  in  L.  9.  C.  Thcod.  de  ccntu  unc  wbcript.  {xill- 14). 


126 


On  the   Roman   Colxmi. 


this  new  arrangeinent  then  became  unalterable,  even  though 
one  of  the  estates  should  afterward  be  sold  ^. 

The  reason  for  these  restriction!)  on  the  landholder  one 
might  be  disposed  at  first  to  look  for  in  certain  rights  posscst 
by  the  colonus  himself,  in  wliich  case  his  consent  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  remove  them.  But  no  mention  is  ever 
made  of  any  such  consent ;  nor  in  fact  had  the  cotonus  any 
manner  of  right  in  the  soil.  That  he  was  not  the  pro- 
prietor of  it,  and  so  could  not  himself  dispose  of  it>  was 
clear":  but  even  the  lowest  kind  of  real  right  to  the  soil 
is  never  ascribed  to  him.  Indeed  that  no  such  existed,  follows 
necessarily  from  the  before-mentioned  rights  of  the  mast^* 
to  exchange  his  coloni  and  to  remove  them.  So  that  in  fact 
it  was  only  for  the  interests  of  the  state  that  those  restrictions 
were  imposed  ^,  although  the  roUmi  thereby  indirectly  ob- 
tained a  similar  protection  against  arbitrary  conduct  on  the 
part  of  the  landowner,  as  if  they  had  themselves  had  a  right 
in  the  soil.  These  interests  of  the  slate  consisted  primarily 
and  mainly  in  its  superintending  care  for  agriculture,  which 
was  held  to  be  especially  promoted  by  the  encouragement 
of  such  a  relation*'.  Beside  this  however  there  were  the 
interests  of  the  revenue,  which  will  be  spoken  of  presently. 
The  welfare  of  the  eutoni  themselves  was  not  considered, 
except  in  certain  subordinate  regulations,  which,  it  is  true, 
were  founded  on  humanity,  but  the  very  need  for  which  is 
enough  to  prove  that  they  had  no  right  in  the  soil.  Thus  for 
instance  when  an  estate  held  in  common,  to  wliieh  there  were 
rol-oni  belonging,  was  divided^  married  couples  and  relations 
were  not  to  be  separated*^.  Again  if  cohni  were  transferred 
from  one  estate  to  another,  and  then  one  of  these  estates  was 
sold,  the  children  were  in  like  manner  to  remain  with  their 


M  L.  IS,  §  I.  C.  J.  de  mgrie.  (xi.  47). 

"  U  1.  ('.  Theotl.  DC  colonua  (r.  11) :  Non  dublum  est  coloiUa  arm  quu  inbigunt 
.^^enandi  jus  noa  eu«.    L.  I?.  C.  J.  de  »gnc.  {xi.  47}- 

**  There  U  «  direct  relcrenct  to  this  In  the  wordi  privata  pactkm  in  the  puuge 
qnotcd  in  nnie  &3. 

>^  Not.  ValctiL  Tit  9  i  Ne  ad  alterum  oolonl,  nd  alterum  possessio  exhauua  per- 
Viotol.  L.  7.  C  J.  de  affile,  {xi.  47) :  Neque  veio— id  usiiipet  l^itt  illusor — ut  psnra 
povtione  Urrac  eniptuii  tmditu,  oiimiB  ititegri  fimilt  ctiltun  ■lUnuilur. 

**  h.  II.  C.  J.  coaun.  utr.  jud.  (iii.  38). 


the  Roman  Cohni. 


127 


parents".  It  deserves  notice  that  the  abovementioiied  super- 
intending care  for  agriculture,  as  well  as  tlie  humane  regard 
for  the  preservation  of  family  ties,  was  not  confintxl  to  the 
coioniy  but  even  embraced  the  slaves,  when  they  were  em- 
ployed in  husbandry,  and  as  such  were  enrolled  in  the  regis- 
ters'^. This  assimilation  of  the  two  classes  is  a  further  jiroof 
that  tlie  coloni  were  not  supposed  to  have  any  personal  right 
in  the  soil,  since  any  such  right  vested  in  a  slave  was  utterly 
inconceivable. 

Such  being  the  origin  of  the  inseparable  connexion  he- 
tween  the  mlonus  and  tlie  soil,  we  easily  get  to  a  very  natural 
Umitation  of  it.  If  a  higher  public  interest  pleaded  in  behalf 
of  its  dissolution,  and  the  landowner  was  disposed  to  allow 
it,  there  would  be  no  scruple  about  the  matter.  But  this  would 
happen  in  the  following  important  and  frequent  case.  The 
charge  of  recruiting  the  army  was  imposed  on  the  land- 
holders, in  proportion  to  the  value  of  their  property*'-  Now 
39  no  slaves  were  enlisted''*,  it  must  without  doubt  have  been 
calculated  that  the  recruits  furnislit  by  the  landholders  would 
consist  mainly  of  their  coloni.  In  such  a  case  the  land- 
owner's consent  was  already  procured ;  and  with  regard  to 
the  stale  the  care  for  agriculture  and  for  the  revenue^  was 
outweighed  by  the  still  more  important  care  for  the  army. 
The  passages  quoted  above  (note  4.5),  which  authorize  the 
redemanding  a  coionua  even  when  he  has  become  a  soldier, 
I  speak  only  of  runaway  colonic  that  is,  such  as  have  left  the 
IcsUte  against  the  will  of  the  owner. 


k4LC.  J.  de>|rTlc.  (xt.47V  Thus  penniMion  was  irramed  even  Iti  earlier 
t'dlin  wu  laid  to  a  cofonni,  to  avert  the  Mrparalion  of  a  married  couple 
or  of  porenw  and  children  by  (he  praducdan  of  tul»titutes.  L.  nn.  C  Theod.  dc 
\ut\\aL  (v.  10).  .\oT.  Valentin.  Tit.  II. 

•"  L.  7-  t-'-  J-  At  agric.  (xi.  47):  yuemadtnodum  originarioa  absque  terra,  ita 
nu/KDM  oetmiiMiftit  itrvm  rrndi  omnifanatn  non  liccbii.  L.  U.  ('.  J.  nMiitn.  utr.  jud. 
(ill.  38).  PrcviouBly  there  had  only  been  a  prnhibitlon  a^nst  tlieir  being  sold  out  of 
their  pTDTioce:  L.  3.  C.  Theod.  sine  censii  (xi.  3]. 

•'  Vegetius  I.  7-  I«7.  C.  Th.  do  tirooibus  (vu.  13).     Nov.  Theod.  TIl  14.  C.  1. 

"  L.  e.  C  Tb.  dc  tifooibui  (vn.  13). 

**  For  aa  soon  ax  the  recruit  was  supplied,  his  poUiax  wu  beyond  a  doubt  taken  off 
ttam  the  eaiaie.  Properly  speaking  he  would  now  have  had  to  pay  hit  polltax  hiuutelf: 
but  he  belonged  to  the  number  of  those  who  had  a  fl[>ccial  exemption  ;  and  It  waa  laid 
down  with  great  precision  in  what  casea  he  aioiic,  aud  in  what  casci  his  raatily  ako 
were  U  benefit  by  the  exemption. 


1S8 


On  the  Roman  Coloni- 


In  another  point  on  the  contrary  the  cohni  were  prottvtcd 
by  an  iniinediate  personal  right.  They  paid  the  landowner 
A  yearly  rent  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  farm  which  they  In- 
habited**. Generally  speaking  this  rent  was  to  be  paid  in 
kind,  and  a  money-payment  was  not  to  be  demanded " : 
there  might  also  be  cases  however  in  which  the  rent  was  to 
l)e  paid  in  money,  unquestionably  either  by  contract  or 
custom".  Now  with  regard  to  this  rent  there  was  this  im- 
portant rule,  that  the  landowner  was  altogether  unable  to 
raise  it  above  what  till  then  had  Ix-en  customary ''* :  and  by 
this  provision  the  condition  of  the  co/otiiw,  in  other  respects 
BO  hard,  was  very  much  lightened. 

This  rent  for  the  lands  iwcupied  by  the  colonic  though  it 
is  indisputably  one  of  the  most  important  features  in  their 
condition,  receives  little  light  from  the  old  lawbooks :  but 
this  only  increases  the  value  of  the  information  which  is  con- 
tained in  a  letter  of  Gregory  the  Great'"*  concerning  the  cohni 
of  the  lloman  church  in  Sicily,  and  of  which  I  will  attempt 
to  give  a  connected  statement.  The  church  did  not  cultivate 
her  estates  on  her  own  score,  but  farmed  them  on  a  targe 
scale  to  conductores'".  Hence  all  the  coloni  living  on  the 
small  plots  of  the  estate  were  farmed  out  along  with  it  to 
the  conductor ''\  that  is  to  say,  they  bad  to  pay  thdr  rent 
not  to  the  church  but  to  him,  so  that  the  regulations  con- 
tained in  the  pope's  letter  are  to  be  regarded  in  the  first 
instance  as  a  code  for  the  farmers  and  coloni  of  the  church. 


**  Aiinuae  fimctiunn  :  L.  2.  C.  J.  io  quib.  cmtuis  coL  (xi.  4n).  Rcditaa :  L.  90. 
pr.  L.  n.  g  I.  C.  J.  de  ofpic  {xi.  47). 

'^  L.  A.C.  J.  de  agric.  (xi.  47).     Domini  pntciliDniTn  Id  quod  terra  pracjitat  acci- 
plant,  perunSain  nan  requirsnt,  quam  nutici  optaie  nan  audent ;  niHi  cunnuetudo  prae«  . 
dii  hoc  cxi^at. 

M  I,.  2«.  §  2.  C.  J.  de  .pie,  (xi.  47). 

«  L.  l.'J.'n.J.  itiqulb.  caiiB.  col.  (xi.4fl).  L.  ?3.  §  I.  f.  J.  ie  «pric.  (xr.  47). 
This  «u  ihe  only  caie  In  which  the  cotonuM  was  allowed  to  mnintain  a  piivaLcociioa 
Bgainft  his  landlord.     Ses  note  33. 

"  Lib.  I.  Ep.  44.  p.  *33,  «qq.  ed.  Pam,  IJtW. 

"**  The«e  canduclorm  are  mencionrd  in  pp.  JV14,  iVSlV,  &3^.  Thtf  again  to  a  certain 
ilcgrcc  formed  a  cIbm  by  thciii»etvn  :  at  li:!a.^t  it  was  belli  hy  nna\y  persoiu  that  their 
prdpt-ny  at  their  death  did  nm  ilc^cmd  to  ihetr  rcUtinns  hut  fell  tn  the  church.  Thia 
doctrine  i«  reprehended  by  the  pope  (p.  ."jS-iJ,  who  orders  that  the  eonimon  taw  of  infac- 
titouce  nhadld  be  obwrved. 

''*  ficnce  In  pp.  ^"Vt,  ^7  we  find  the  wortU  :  (juotiea  conductor  aJiquid  cv/ono  SU9 
injuRte  abitiilerit. 


On  the  Roman  ColonL 


129 


The  rent  in  Sicily  consisted  miiversaily  in  a  certain  portion 
of  the  produce,  which  however  was  sometimes  delivered  in 
kind,  sometimes  bought  off  with  money.  In  the  former 
case  the  votoni  had  to  hear  both  the  risk  of  the  voyage,  and 
the  unavoidable  damage  on  Ijoard  ship,  for  which  they  had 
to  give  the  sailors  nn  average  compensation.  With  regard 
to  the  latter  case  the  pope  enjoins  that  the  sum  taken  is 
always  to  be  the  real  marketprice  at  the  time,  it  having 
hitherto  been  the  practice  in  cheap  years  to  oppress  the 
co((Hu  by  arbitrarily  fixing  higher  prices.  The  passage  of  the 
letter  wliich  lays  down  u  general  rule  for  the  rate  of  the  rent 
is  peculiarly  important,  but  very  difficult.  Gregory  says,  it 
had  hitherto  been  tlie  custom  or  many  estates  to  extort  the 
oppressive  rent  of  three  bushels  and  a  half  out  of  seventy  from 
the  co/ow",  and  even  to  increase  this  rent  by  sundry  by- 
charges.  He  orders  that  in  future  no  more  than  two  bush^a 
out  of  seventy  sliniild  lie  taken,  and  that  nothing  should  be 
required    l>eynnd  ^.       And    to  the   end    that   the  roinni   may 


"  That  is,  a  twentkth  of  the  produce,  or  half  a  tenth.  Tlie  lent  in  future  was  to 
Kmouiit  only  to  ■  thirtj/fiflh.  Uow  iJie  numbct  tevenlj/  cuiie  to  be  uacd,  I  am  unable 
td  explain. 

^*  The  p«s»a^  about  the  Hubstance  of  which  there  can  be  no  queetion,  thotif^fa  it  is 
tar  from  easy  to  expUbi  die  word»,  standii  iu  the  Paris  edition  as  follows :  Coffnovimia 
Hiam,  tn  nSiptibta  maMu  Fcel^lnae  r.xacliottem  injtulitamam  jfrrt,  Uu  vt  a  Mptua^itta 
tCfu  MniM,  qHod  Hiri  nrj'tu  fMt,  conducinre«  eiignntur :  xt  adhuc  ucipte  lutr.  nuffiHiy 
»^  intuper  aliifuid  ex  tuu  J'tm  muiti/rHm  cxi|fi  iticuntur,  (^inm  rem  twinino  lietet- 
tmmmr  tl  praut  rirr<  rvtiieorum  portant^  peruionem  i'Urffram  ad  scptungcna  bioA 
penahmmt.  It  ia  clear  thai  the  pope  meant  to  My,  IVe  Aun-  h^ard  ifuu  iu  miriiy  placTM 
Ae Jitrmtn  tfoet  thrfv  and  u  hid/mit  of  *frrntj/  {/nm  the  coioni)  t  najf  il  it  »aid  that 
Ihegmr*  not  men  canJenUd  wilh  thij,  but  alill  demand  tamething  more.  In  order  liawevrr 
to  uodentand  the  words  in  this  way,  thejr  must  be  exptuoedaiul  amffnded  asfollnvB.  The 
Mibjcet  of  the  whole  jiropoMtion  \f  the  maHei  teeieMae,  who  uemcntiatied  to  repeatedly 
in  the  prvcnlinfr  port  of  the  lettix  that  there  in  nathinf;  at  all  fivccd  in  supplying  than 
here.  Henidn  vc  mu4l  read  a  tepiuagenin  ttrna  )iemix.  and  sfierwaril  j/er  cmiduC' 
lore*  esigvntiir,  Septvagdnig  is  Ibuuil  in  Mine  of  the  maii\iiicri])t)^,  and  supported 
by  the  anftloxy  ofteptvagtna  just  ai\er.  Tenia  ha«  no  maniucript  auihoriiy  ;  but  the 
nnniBala  of  the  older  manuacriplx  mi^ht  easily  be  converted  by  a  miRtakcn  inti-rpre- 
taCioo  both  into  temi  and  ternit.  Ternin  uperially  may  hare  arisen  ftom  an  erroneous 
notion  that  it  wan  to  be  taken  alotifc  with  *^ptuafifui»  i  and  then  the  »  at  the  bc|;inniiig 
of  the  next  word  may  hate  led  to  the  chan(;c  of  Umig  into  temi.  Trrna  Is  lo  be  takett 
M  the  accusative^  aod  the  whole  clause  is  to  tM  liUed  up  and  coiUElrvaed  as  foUows — 
ibt  mi  {rv»tiri}  jHf  entidtif^loret  etiffunlur  lema  semii  a  iepluageni.': ;  which  conitnic 
tka  il  eMiflimed  by  the  exactly  parallel  one  iiiimedialely  after  :  tmnper  aiifjuid  (ru». 
liet)»Migi  dieutUur,  Oo  thia  construction  cf  erigantur  bm  CtmmO'  pr.  ad  frcllium 
«xnmuuin  triaa.     Kil.  Ifl27>  pp.  29.  k). 

Vol..  II.  No.  4.  K 


130 


On  the  Jiomafi  Coloni. 


not  be  deprived  of  this  bciieHt  al'ter  his  death,  he  orders  tliat  • 
official    statements    of   the    rate    of   the    whole    rent    should 
be  wade  out  and   eiven  to  thetu.      Now   tliis  rent  certaiulv 


to  be 


gi 


hov 


er^ 


seems  to  be  incomprehensibly  low:  this  appearance 
may  be  explained  in  some  measure  by  the  following  remarks. 
In  the  first  place  the  above-mentioned  prohibition  of  extra 
charges  is  not  to  be  construed  too  literally  :  so  that  we  do 
not  know  how  many  such  were  still  to  continue ;  and  by  these 
the  rate  fixt  was  unquestionably  raised  somewhat  higher. 
Thus  for  instance  every  mhnua  had  to  pay  a  certain  sum 
to  the  farmer  for  permission  to  marry,  which  however  was 
not  to  amount  to  more  than  a  solidus  (p.  5:fa).  More- 
over the  pope  with  great  indignation  forbids  the  levying 
the  rent  by  an  imaginary  modiuH  larger  than  the  common 
one  (p.  533),  and  adds  that  no  Hiore  than  eighteen  sextarii 
to  the  tnodius  must  be  demanded  at  the  utmost.  Now  a> 
the  common  modius  contained  only  sixteen  sea'tarii  ''\  he  at 
all  events  here  allows  an  arbitrary  addition,  though  without 
doubt  one  sanctioned  by  usage,  of  two  se.vtarii  to  the  modiust 
that  is,  of  an  eighth  of  the  whole  rent ;  so  that  he  does  not 
prohibit  every  kind  of  abuse,  but  merely  the  cxu-rying  it  too  far. 
Of  still  greater  importance  however  is  it  that  the  coloni  had 
to  discliarge  the  landtax  to  which  their  plots  were  liable. 
Now  if  we  assume,  wliat  is  very  probable  on  other  grounds, 
that  the  landtax  at  that  period  was  very  high  "',  we  shall 
easily  understand  that  a  high  rent  could  not  be  paid  at 
the  same  time  to  the  landlord.  The  important  fact,  that 
the  coloni  really  had  to  pay  the  landtax  for  their  plots  to 
the  treasury,  results  from  the  following  passage  of  the  letter 
referred  to  (p.  535).  The  pope  says  tlint  the  first  payment 
of  the  tax  prest  especially  hard  on  the  colmii;  for  since  at 
the  time  of  payment   ihey  had  not  sold  their  produce  yet"'. 


"  Volatius  Mflrelinus  de  Aw*,  at  (he  end  of  the  neatlsc. 

''*  See  the  fouith  acirtiou  of  my  Disserudon  on  the  Ruman  Fuunceo  under  the  Em- 
perors :  [a  tJMuitAtion  of  which  will  be  iaserted  in  »  future  Number  of  the  Pliilological 

"  The  luDtltax  for  the  yeiir  was  levied  in  three  ptymcntx  made  on  the  finit  of 
January,  of  Mitj,  and  of  September :  lee  the  third  Hecticn  of  my  Uiuerlatioa  on  the 
Roman  Finance*.  Now  on  the  finit  of  lhe«c  days  the  olive-harvest  wa«  hardly  oTer; 
Mnd  the  oil,  the  sale  of  which  muit  probably  hare  been  the  chief  resource  for  piocurinfc 
mowy,  could  not  be  diipoied  of,  unJe»  the  catonu  u  the  pope  laya,  toiret  out  of 


On  the  Roman  Cofoni. 


131 


fthey  were  forced  to  borrow  t!ie  money  from  the  officers  of 
the  revenue  at  a  usurious  interest.  He  orders  that  in  future 
the  money  sliottld  l>e  advanced  (unquestionably  without  in- 
erest)  from  the  church-chest,  and  that  the  cohni  should 
fund   it    by    deg;rccs.       The   whole  passage   is  as   follows: 

^Prueterea  cugnovimiis  quod  prima  illntio  hurdationh'^^  ru^' 
tiros  nmti-vs  vehementer  angustat,  ita  ut  priusquam  lahores 
8UOS  vcrmndare  vaicant,  compeilantur  tributa  persoirere  ; 
qui  dum  de  stiOt  unde  dare  deheant,  non  hnhent,  ah  mtc- 
tktnariis  pubUcis'''  mutua  arcipiunt^  et  gravia  cnmmoda 
pro  eodetn  beneficio  persohunt :  e.r  qua  re  ^fit  nt  diitpendiin 
ffravibti^  coangustentur.  Unde.  prac^cnti  ndmonitione  prae- 
cipimus  ut  omne  quod  mufuum  pro  eadent  causa  ab  e.rtraneis 
accipere  ptfterant^  a  tua  ejrpnrientia  pxthlico'^  detur,  et  a  rus- 
liria  Ecclesuie  pnufatim  ut  futbueriut  arcipiatur ;  7te  dum 
in  tem})ore  coattg^uAtantury  quod  eis  poxtmndum  su^cere  in 
inferendum  poferaty  prius  compulai  viliutt  vendant,  et  hoc 
fw  minime  sftJfiHat. 

With  regard  to  property  the  colont  seem  at  first  sight 
to  stand  on  exactly  the  same  foot  as  the  slaves.  What  they 
possess  is  called  pevufittm.,  just  as  is  the  case  with  slaves: 
it  is  said  that  the  claims  of  the  master  did  not  merely  extend 
to  the  person  of  his  eolonus,  but  embraced  his  pecji/ium'''* ; 
nay  that  the  cofoni  earned  for  their  master,  and  that  what 
(hey  earned  belonged  not  to  them,  but  to  him''^     A  minuter 

thrir  ttnits  consmtetl  to  part  with  it  under  itH  value.  Witb  rcFcrcDcc  tu  a  mere  com* 
country  the  [>&Mage  would  be  nonMmw;  for  in  Hurh  the  produce  might  UHuredlr 
h«ve  hem  conveniently  m>I(I  before  the  6r«it  of  jKnintry. 

'•  TUe  word  imrdtttia  ocean  nowhere  except  in  two  pMMgM  of  this  letter  (pp.  ft3*, 
SS6) :  and  im  etymoIoKy  >■  unccruin.  There  on  be  no  Joubt  however  about  ita 
meanin;^  both  on  account  of  the  jtrima  iifatio  coupled  with  it  (nee  the  third  sectton  of 
my  Ihucrtntinn  on  the  Romnn  Finances),  and  because  the  word  Irilivta  it  u«ed  itame- 
dialely  after  ut  equtTalent  to  it. 

"  We  ihuuld  follow  the  manuscript*  which  read  aetionariis.  Avtimuirii  pufJiei 
wai  a  general  name  for  al]  the  officers  of  tile  revenue,  and  is  twcd  here  for  the  tBX> 
c»lleeton.     Sec  Uucange  on  ae/iimarixu  aiid  atictiotmritta. 

'*  Tua  rjj>erienH<iy  aa  appcan  fnitn  Kercnt]  paxsogca,  is  the  official  honorsry  till* 
vhidt  tbe  pope  gives  to  the  subdcaron,  Pctn.  PnUico  i*  the  dative,  and  means  the 
■me  H  >i#co,  the  exche(|uer.  The  reading  of  the  old  edltiona,  e*  jnU»tieo,  U  to  be  re> 
jccud  therefore  without  hesitation. 

'»  L.  un.  I.:.  Thcod.  de  inquUinin  {v.  10).     L.  23.  §  3.  C.  J.  de  agric.  (xi.  47). 

••  It.  3.  C.  J.  in  quib.  caun.  coloni  {xr.  49) :  Quetii  ncc  propria  quidem  lege*  aut 
juru  habere  vcduenint,  et— domino  ct  acquittre.  el  habere  vohietunt.     I*.  IB.  ('.  J-  dc 


las 


On  the  R&man  Cototti. 


examination  however  wiU  convince  us  that  then^  expre^orfft 
are  not  to  be  taken  literaU)/.  In  fact  the  coloni  were  capable 
of  holding  property ;  and  they  were  only  prohibited  from 
alienating  their  property  without  the  consent  of  their  land- 
lord'*, it  being  unquestionably  more  advantageous  both  for 
the  estate  itself  and  for  its  niaflter  to  have  a  wealthy 
itiloattti  than  a  poor  one.  This  incapacity  of  alienating  pro- 
perty is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  abovementioned  inaccurate 
expressions ;  so  that  the  difference  between  the  coUnius  and 
the  slave  in  this  point  was  very  great*  For  a  slave  actually 
bad  nothing  of  hia  own;  and,  as  the  most  important  conse- 
quence of  this  principle,  his  master  could  take  away  everything 
that  be  possest :  a  colonus  had  property  of  his  own,  which 
could  not  be  taken  awav  from  him,  and  he  was  only  de- 
barred from  alienating  it  at  discretion.  That  this  was  really 
the  stale  of  things  is  set  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  following 
instances.  If  a  colotius  was  a  Donatist,  he  was  to  lose  a 
third  part  of  his  peculium  as  a  punishment  for  his  heresy", 
a  penalty  which  evidently  assumes  that  he  had  property 
of  his  own.  Moreover  it  was  a  general  rule  that,  if  a 
priest  or  monk  died  without  a  will,  and  left  no  heirs,  his 
property  went  to  his  church  or  convent.  To  this  rule  how- 
ever there  were  three  exceptions :  if  the  deceast  was  a  freed- 
xnan,  or  a  cohnti^,  or  a  member  of  a  curiaf  his  property 
was  to  go  to  his  patron,  or  landlord,  or  ctiHa^,  The  object 
of  this  rule,  as  well  as  the  mention  of  the  coloniis  alongside 
'  of  the  freedman  and  the  ciirialisy  shews  that  the  cohni  must 
have  had  heritnWe  projwrty  of  their  own.  This  limited  power 
in  disposing  uf  their  property  was  all  indeed  that  the  atloniy 
generally  speaking,  possest :  but  there  were  two  exceptions 
tu  this,  which  have  already  l)een  mentioned  above.  Fur 
such  coloni  as  had  become  .so  by  prL'^jcriptiun  were  to  have 
a  perfectly  free  command  of  their  property  "* :  and  so  were 
those  who  sprang  from  the  marriage  of  a  colonus  with  a 
free    woman  *'',      One   may    therefore   assume,    with   reference 

■>  L.  an.  C.  Theod.  nc  colonuafv.  U).    L.  2.  C.  J.  InquLb.  c«tts.  colooi  (xi.  4t).^ 

"  L.  M.  C.  Thwcl.  dc  hacreticit  (xri.  4). 

"  li.  ua.  C.  Theoi).  ile  bonin  clerirnrnm  (v.  3).     !<.  'M.  ('.  J.  ilc  epiicoiiu  (i.  3). 

•*  I,,  m.  U  2\  S  I-  f-  J.  <Ic  *Kric.  (XI.  17).     ^^<c  ftbflTt  p.  121. 

"  .Nov.  162.  r.  i.     .-^tx  alj.ivi-  |..  IJll. 


On  the  Roman  Coloni. 


133 


to  this  distinction,  that  there  were  two  classes  of  coUmi,  of 
which  one  enjoyed  greater  freedom  than  the  other "". 

One  of  the  modt  diflicult  points  connected  with  tlie  con> 
dition  of  the  coloni  is  what  regards  the  public  taxes.  This 
is  a  matter  however  of  which  nothing  more  than  a  general 
view  can  here  be  taken :  to  investigate  it  in  detail,  with  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  historical  evidence  that  may 
tiirow  light  on  it,  would  be  impossible  except  in  connexion 
witlK  the  whole  fiscal  system  of  the  Romans.  At  the  time 
when  the  coloni  became  a  distinct  class,  and  even  long  before, 
two  direct  taxes  prevailed  one  along  with  the  other  through 
the  Koman  empire,  a  landtax,  and  a  polltax.  The  first 
woB  pnid  by  all  landed  proprietors  {posseasores),  the 
second  by  those  who  had  no  landed  property*  provided 
they  were  not  freed  from  it  either  by  their  rank  {pleheii), 
ox  by  some  particular  exemption.  From  this  outline  of 
the  general  system  of  taxation  we  may  draw  the  following 
inferences  with  regard  to  the  roionL  The  landtax  for 
their  plots  of  land  fell  on  the  landlord,  because  the  pro- 
perty belonged  to  him.  So  far  as  relates  to  this  obligation 
in  itself  no  material  differences  could  prevail:  the  only  one 
was  whether  tht^  actual  paynieni  of  Uit*  laitdtax  was  made 
Immediately  by  the  landlord  or  by  the  co/orif,  which  indeed 
must  have  been  a  iimtter  of  not  the  slightest  niument  to  the 
treasury  *'•  On  the  other  hand  all  the  roloniy  as  a  class,  were 
I  liable  to  pay  pulUax :  for  tliey  were  all  plubuians  without  ex- 
Iccption,  mid  can  very  seldom  have  been  exempted  as  landed 
proprietors,  since  they  never  had  auy  property  in  the  plot 
which  they  cultivated  (sec  p.  ISG),  and  their  having  any  landed 
property  lying  elsewhere  was  assuredly  a  very  rare  occurrence 
Indeed  among  those  who  paid  the  polltax  they  were  far  the 
most  numerous  and  productive  class,  more  especially  after 
the  towntj  were  exempted  from  it.  Thus  it  came  to 
pass    that  the   liability    to  pay    the  poUtax,   though   neither 


**  HcQcc  in  I*.  33.  ^  1.  C  i.  ile  agiic.  [xi.  47)  thcM  iirivilcftcd  oo/oni  are  ciUImI 
Urri  hjr  way  of  rantraar  Co  tiie  mhen..  tin  the  other  tund  the  expresition  liberi  coloni-, 
in  U  un.  f.'.  J.  de  coll.  lUyr.  (xi.  A2],  seemn  to  (leaignilc  the  coloni  gcmraUy  «s  pp- 
pmed  lo  the  sUvca:  white  in  h.  I.  C  J.  de  prned.  txiiiiftciK  (xi.  All)  it  must  meui 
fte*  pcMant)  b»  dutinguiihl  from  ihc  coloni,  properly  »  c«Ucd,  who  are  there  lermed 
admijttHii. 

'^  See  slMTe  p.  ISA. 


134> 


On  the  Roman  Coimii. 


nn  essenrial  feature  in  the  condition  of  a  rolontts,  nor  e 
flusively  conHned  to  it,  was  yet  regarded  as  regular 
and  ordinarily  appertaining  to  it.  Hence  when  the  polltax 
•was  taken  off  in  some  of  the  provinces,  it  was  thought  necessary 
ex]>ressly  to  add  that  the  condition  of  the  t'oloni  was  never- 
theless to  continue  in  other  respects  the  same"*.  The  charge 
of  answering  for  the  polltax  of  the  roiunt  was  imposed  on 
the  landlord :  it  was  entered  into  the  registers  along  with 
the  landtax  of  the  estate :  tlie  landlord  had  to  pay  it  to  the 
collectors,  and  was  left  to  recover  it  from  his  coloni  at  his 
own  risk  and  cost. 

From  this  general  liahility  of  the  tstloni  to  pay  the  polltax, 
they  derived  the  following  appellations :  trifmfnrii, — which 
name  therefore  must  by  no  means  be  derived  from  the  rent 
they  paid  to  their  landlords"*, — cenititi  or  rtmaibfis  obnoaii^, 
and  those  which  occur  so  frequently,  adfirriptifii,  adscriptitiae 
conditionu^^j  cetmbua  adscripti''".  The-  latter  do  not  refer, 
as  one  might  be  inclined  to  suppose,  to  the  peculiar  relation 
between  the  tax  paid  by  the  rofoni  and  that  paid  by  the  estate, 
to  which  the  other  was  a  kind  of  supplement  or  appendage  r 
they  merely  express  generally  that  the  whni  were  registered 
in  the  tax-rolls,  and  so  were  (personally)  liable  to  pay  tax. 
For  the  term  adarripHo  is  also  applied  to  the  estates  them- 
selves''; so  that  in  fact  it  is  merely  a  general  designation 
for  the  entering  of  any  object  in  the  taxbooks,  in  other  wordsi 
for  its  liahility  to  pay  tax. 

This   liability   of  the   roloni    to    the  poUtax    waft  one  of 
the   two  reasons  for  which   the   state  tried  in  every   way  to 

••  L.  un.  a  J.  de  col.  Thr*c.  ( x  l.  ftl ),     L.  un.  C.  J.  dc  col.  lUyr.  ( x  I.  M). 

"US.  C.  J.  lit  netnu  (xi.  »»).  L.  V2.  V.  J.  de  »Kric.  (ki.  47).  L.  2.  V.  Th.  «i 
T&(^m  (x.  12).  Thiit  the  nmme  Irihuiarii  don  in  fact  come  from  the  poll»x  paid  to 
the  KUtc,  not  from  the  rent  paid  to  the  luidlurd,  »  incAiUrovcrtibly^  proved  by  the  Uwi 
«tuoieil  in  the  preceding  note,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  coloni  art  lo  be  freed  fhmi 
tJicir  tributariua  nesus. 

•*  L.  -I,  (I,  13.  pr.  C.  J.  deap-ic  (xi.  47).  See  above  note  2!.  h.  1.  C.  J.  de  tiror. 
(xiT.  44).  Thty  were  alim  termed  cnpite  cens't :  JiiUani  epiu  nor.  conm.  31.  C  12. 
SUrn  alMt  might  from  tike  rcaxoni  be  cenrili  and  be  so  called.  L.  7-  ^-  J-  de  agrir. 
(XI.  47).     li.  10.  C.  J.  de  re  milii.  (xii.  3fl).     See  note  )». 

"<  L.6,21,23,23,  24.C.J.  deaifTic.  (xt.47).  L.  U.  C.J.comm.  uU.  jijd.{ni.  30). 

"  L.  lit,  22.  pr.  4.  C.  J.  de  agric  (xi.  47).  L.  2.  C.  J.  in  (inik  caus.  col.  {\t.  4It). 
I,.«>.C..».deepi«c  (!..■»). 

**  For  init Alice  in  L.  S.  C.  Th.  ne  collat.  cnuulatio  ( x  e.  22). 


On  the  Human  Coloni. 


135 


arage  and  to  uphold  them  as  a  class;  and  thiR  was  also 
0M  of  the  motives  why  the  landlord  was  prohibited  from 
arbitrarily  severing  the  colmiiis  from  his  estate.  Indeed 
several  expressions  might  lead  one  to  believe  that  the  erection 
of  the  whole  class  had  proceeded  originally  from  the  distri- 
bution of  the  multitude  who  were  without  property,  among 
the  landowners,  purely  for  the  sake  of  the  revenue  '■"  :  this 
however  from  other  grounds  is  very  improbable,  and  at  the 
utmost  can  only  have  been  the  case  in  certain  countries  and 
at  particular  times. 

It  remains  for  mc  to  speak  of  the  way  in  which  a  colonua 
ccast  to  be  one.  The  practice  with  regard  to  slaves  might 
at  first  induce  us  to  expect  that  he  might  he  set  free  by 
the  will  of  his  landlord,  acting  either  at  his  own  absolute 
discretion,  or  at  all  events  with  the  consent  of  the  rolonus 
himself.  Yet  nothing  of  the  sort  is  anywhere  mentioned**: 
and  this  may  easily  be  accounted  for  from  the  abovementioncd 
prohibition  against  separating  a  cittonua  from  the  estate.  For 
the  same  motives  wliich  stixnl  in  the  way  of  the  sale  of  a 
colonist  would  likewi.sc  oppose  his  being  set  free;  nor  was 
there  anything  like  the  same  urgent  reasons  for  liberating 
him*  as  for  the  slaves.  On  the  oiIkt  hand  we  Hnd  mention 
of  two  cases  in  which  the  bond  of  a  rolotms  might  be  dis- 
solved by  prescription,  when  he  had  lived  for  a  certain  time 
either  as  a  free  man,  or  under  another  master.  The  term 
.assigned  in  both  cases  was  nriginnlty  thirty  years  for  men, 
I  twenty  for  women:  and  witli  regard  to  the  second  case  a  more 
specific  provision  was  added,  that,  if  a  man  had  lived  with 
several  landlords  in  succession,  the  one  under  whom   he  hail 


**  It.  96.  C  Theod,  de  annon*  [xi.  1} :  Nullum  f^tiA  rdcr^t :  DuUum  inijUM 
yarlitumu  vetet  incnmiiioduiti,  kcd  p&ri  unine*  »orte  taicantur:  iu  tjuoen,  ut,  ilad 
kluniu  penoDam  tnrufentur  piB«c)ium,  rui  efrtun  pUtris  numertu  fuerit  adMcriptuty 
vtDclili  oncrk  novelliis  poMCMor  coinpcUaCur  BgnMcero. 

**  Indeed  thenpmaiun  uied  in  L.  21.  C.  J.  dearie  (xi.  47)  seeiiui  to  point  out 
fntttj  elcailythaiU  wuInBilnilstible;  <•(  pouit  {dotniniu)  »frTttm  einapfculiomaHu. 
miitere,  €t  attifriplUiutn  cum  lem  dominio  *vo  rsjteUere.  So  thai  he  could  not  do  it 
IJM  term.  In  the  whole  paaMge  there  is  a  design  to  hring  out  the  mriiiblBiice 
bctweet)  \ht  eotoni  and  the  «Uves :  thin  in  (he  reaaoii  why  the  mimumixsian  of  the 
iltTCi  ctiiN  pecuiia  ii  meatioocd,  because  this  could  certainly  be  iii  some  meuure  n>m. 
prntA  w  the  diapoaing  of  the  raionfu  nli>ng  with  hia  (km,  wKereM  there  wm  nothinjr 
wnectad  with  the  co/oni  analogous  totheaHmi(«iMfo«iiW|Meu/K)|  which  unquestion-* 
Ibljr  waa  cquBUr  adniiasible. 


136 


Qn  the  Roman  Colotti. 


lived  the  longest  was  to  keep  Iiini,  or,  if  there  was  no  dif- 
ference of  time,  the  last  ^.  The  first  kind  of  prescription, 
hy  which  a  colonue  obtained  his  freedom  through  faia  own 
act,  was  entirely  abolii^ht  by  Justinian;  so  that  from  his 
linie  forward  there  waw  no  limit  to  the  penod  after  which  the 
master  of  a  coiontts  might  lay  claim  to  him "'.  With  regard 
to  the  second  kind  of  prescription,  by  which  a  fWv/m-v  came 
into  the  hands  of  anotlier  landowner,  he  did  not  lay  down 
any  rule;  nor  did  he  incorporate  the  beforementioncd  regu- 
lations made  by  his  prcnlecessors  "^.  Hence  it  seems  that  in 
this  case  the  general  rule  with  regard  to  prescription  in  all 
actions  must  now  have  come  into  force,  so  that  a  thirty-years 
possession  would  be  secured  against  the  claims  of  the  prior 
mABter,   without  regard  to  those  specific  regidutions. 

After  going  through  thedc  det^h  we  may  now  give  the 
following  general  view  of  the  condition  of  the  roioni.  They 
were  attacht  to  the  soil  by  their  birth,  not  as  day-labourers, 
but  as  farmers,  who  tilled  a  piece  of  land  on  their  own  account, 
and  rendered  produce  or  money  for  it :  that  they  had  also  to 
perform  any  services  on  their  landlord's  estate  is  nowhere 
mentioned.  They  had  no  personal  right  in  the  land :  but  as 
(he  state  from  economical  and  financial  reasons  insisted  on 
their  continuing  on  their  farms,  and  as  their  rent  could  not 
be  raised,  their  condition  was  nearly  as  well  secured  as  it 
would  have  been  by  personal  rights.  They  could  hold  pro- 
perty, only  they  were  precluded  from  disclosing  of  it  at 
will:  some  classett  however  were  free  even  from  this  restric- 
tion. Generally  speaking  they  paid  a  polltax :  but  even  in 
cases  where  this  was  remitted,  their  condition  as  oolom  still 
continued  unchanged*".     If  we  compatc  tlieir  condition  with 


••  L.  un.  C.  Tbeod.  de  InquU.  (v.  10).  Nov.  VsIml  Tit.  ». 

>T  L. !».  pr.  C.  J.  da  ■gric.  (xi.  47)' 

■*  L.  33.  pr.  C.  J.  de  »ghc.  (xi.  47)  spe*ki  of  a  cUlm  advADctd  »f(«lnM  Um 
Mioima  hlnuelf,  and  cxprestily  forbids  all  prawriptian  tn  >uch  c*«e:  the  »econd  Mctimi 
qtcalu  «f  eUtmx  yugeti  agauut  uinther  propneior,  and  in  no  doing  Mys  notlnng  «boui 
any  mK  o(  prc9cription. 

^  Hence  we  Me  that  wnoag  the  eaiovii  by  vmy  of  exccptlan  rhne  might  be  firand 
irutanccs  of  two  lotkllj'  difi'cTcnt  pTivtlcftM,  the  ri^ht  of  dbpminjt  ol'  property,  «id  the 
coemption  from  the  poUtax.  There  wu  no  Ktrt  of  oonncKion  between  ihetn,  ud 
CujAciiu,  who  jombln  them  up  locether.  En  evidcnlljt  miitftken.     Kor  in  I*,  un.  C.  J. 


>»  the  Roman  Co&nl 


137 


the  old  division  of  all  the  free  inhabitants  of  the  empire  into 
cives^  Latlni^  and  pnre^riniy  there  can  be  no  question  that 
they  mi^ht  belong  according  to  circumstances  to  any  one  of 
these  three  classes.  But  as  the  existence  of  Latini  and  pere- 
grini  in  later  times  seems  to  have  been  merely  a  rare  excep- 
tion, the  chief  part  of  the  coloni  would  no  doubt  be  in  pos- 
nession  of  tlie  lioman  franchise^"".  In  this  case  they  had  a 
legal  rvnnuhiurny  not  merely  with  each  other,  but  even  with 
free  citizens.  It  is  true  that  Justinian  forbad  the  marriage 
of  a  free  woman  with  a  fohnria  belonging  to  another  person, 
declared  it  to  be  null':  not  however  assuredly  from  the 
nnt  uf  the  ruunuUium,  in  which  case  her  marriage  with  her 
own  cahnus^  and  that  of  a  free  man  with  a  (Htiona^  would 
in  like  manner  have  lieen  invalid ;  his  aim  was  merely  by 
this  decree,  emanating  solely  from  his  own  authority,  to  secure 
the  land  efTectually  against  the  loss  of  such  a  voUm^m  and  his 
posterity.  The  names  given  to  these  ]>easants  in  a  state  of 
hereditary  dependence  were  partly  derived  from  the  here- 
ditary nature  of  their  service,'— ori,gi« an j, — partly  from  tlie 
polltax  they  paid — adttcripfi/ii,  trihutarii,  renniti — partly 
from  their  relation  to  the  soil  which  they  cultivated  and 
inhabitcfl.  From  this  source  cotnes  the  general  name  used 
throughout  this  dissertation,  cofrmt:  so  does  the  general  name 
ru*fici%  which  also  occurs  as  a  specific  term  for  this 
particular  clasa^:  and  lastly  the  name  inquilinU  the  mean- 
ing of  wliich  however  has  been  very  much  disputed.  In  most 
of  the  passages  where  it  occurs  this  name  is  used  so  vaguely, 

6k  eoL  Thnc.  (xi.  61)  it  is  expieuly  stated  ttut  the  tfofoni  in  Tlu»ce  were  tax-fjtee, 
bat  at  the  tune  time  lli&t  cheir  Undlord  might  Uj  cUini  to  tlicm  ntm  omni  jxculia. 

'••  Se«  the  Disnetuiiiat]  on  ihe  Jm  Latii.  above  Vol.  i.  pp.  l.')2— IW.  Fimji  ibin 
example  we  may  perceive  most  diitinecly  bow  inadequate  tlic  lepU  noliorm  Htid  (ccli- 
nical  termM  which  *n»r  in  the  claxutal  period  were  to  Rive  a  correct  idea  of  tlie  actual 
state  of  the  empire  in  Uler  timcti ;  so  that  far  innl&ncc  JustinianN  attempt  lo  adapt  tlie 
InatiUitcx  of  GaiuR  to  the  Male  of  Uie  law  in  liia  own  BKe,  by  Itttlc  else  than  abfidffing 
tba  and  orailtinj;  parts,  could  not  hut  titm  nut  very  untttiifactaiily  at  beat.  Kor  the 
eaSmi  In  later  times  ronnetl  one  of  the  mofft  important  order*  in  the  atate;  yet  no 
■MsdoD  l§  made  of  them  in  Juntiniau'ii  iDstittiies:  they  occiiriied  n  middle  nt&tion 
tal««0i  the  free  inen  and  the  iilavei;  yet  iccorditig  to  the  old  claHiiicatioM  retKincd  in 
the  ln»tiiute»  we  should  be  forced  to  place  them  all  imongthe  freemen,  and  the  grcaiar 
put  e«cn  in  the  Km  nuik  of  the  fnt  men,  the  civet. 

«  Not.  22.  V.  I?. 

«  finpny  ihi^  Unmt  (Ep.  t.    44)   moally  calls  ihem  rvtHct  etrln'MC  or  rHititi 
fuialfi,  occasioiully  however  futani  abu). 

Vol..  II.   No.  *.  S 


136 


Oti  the  Roman   Coloni. 


that  one  is  uncertain  whether  it  is  meant  to  designate  a  par^ 
ticular  sort  of  coloni,  or  is  merely  a  synonym  for  the  whole 
class '™ :  but  there  is  one  passage  which  leaves  no  doubt  that 
the  latter  is  the  ease*:  and  the  probability  seems  to  Ikj  that 
all  these  names  were  in  use  for  the  same  order  of  citizens, 
one  prevailing  more  in  one  province,  another  in  another. 

Before  I  conclude  I  have  to  add  a  few  general  remarks 
on  the  history  of  this  order  in  the  Roman  state ;  but  I  must 
preface  them  by  observing  that  this  is  the  verv  branch  of 
the  subject  which  is  the  most  obftcure.  In  our  lawbooks  we 
find  mention  of  the  coloni  from  the  time  of  Constantine  down- 
ward ",  and  that  too  very  widely  diffused  from  the  first, 
throughout  all  parts  of  the  empire,  for  instance  even  in 
Gaul  and  Italy^  After  this  time  their  condition  was  al- 
ways regarded  as  a  most  important  object  of  legislation ; 
and  in  this  light  it  appears  in  .histinian's  collections,  and  in 
his  own  laws.  There  being  no  mention  of  them  in  the 
Institutes  is  to  be  accounted  for  from  their  not  having  been 
spoken  of  in  Gaius :  this  however  is  the  cause  why  modern 
jurists,  on  whose  views  the  system  of  the  Institutes  has 
always  exercised  a  preponderating  influence,  have  left  them 
almost  wholly  unnoticed. 

If  we  go  further  Iwick  than  the  time  of  Constantine,  we  find 
nothing  but  dubious  traces  of  them.  In  a  passage  of  the  Pan- 
dects Marianus  speaks  of  a  testament  by  which  inquitmi  are 
l>equeathed  without  the  estate  they  are  attacht  to:  this  bequest, 
he  says,  is  of  no  effect  with  regard    to  the  object  exprest  in 


'«  L.  «n.  C.  Theod.  de  inqiiil.  (v.  10).  1..  2.  C.  Theod.  si  »agum  (x.  13).  L.  fl. 
C.  J.  de  E^c.  (xi.  47).  h.  un.  C.  J.  de  cal,  Illyr.  (xi.  63).  L.  11.  C.  J.  comm.  utr. 

jud.  {ill.  3a). 

*  h.  13.  pr.  C.  .1.  dc  ■glic.  (xi.  47) :  Defimniufi,  ut  inter  inquUinoa  cnloaonre, 
quorum  ijuantum  ad  orl(;inrm  (i.  e.  prolctii)  Tindiaudani  in/iuereia  eadrmque  fame 
riiirtftr  esse  rtinditio,  linrl  til  ducrimBntn  tutmine^  etc.  (liiJaciuseKDOtion  that  the  ro/oni 
and  in^Hilini  were,  yroprrly  speaking,  ihc  freer  clnues  of  the  herediurlly  dcpeodest 
peauuitry,  u  0|>|iMcd  lo  the  tuUeriplilUt  a  totally  unfounded. 

'  L.  1.  C.  Theod.  <1«  fug.  col  (v,  9)  i«  a  law  of  Constan tine's,  as  early  as  the 
year  332. 

•  iDOanl,  L.  13.  14.  C.  J.  dc«grie.  (xi.  47}:— In  Italy,  L.  3.  C. Theod.  deccosu 
(xtll.  lU),  that  tt,  L.  9.  C.  J.  deagric  (xi.  47):  Imp.  ConstantittK  A.ad  Dulcitium 
consularem  Afmiliae:— in  PalcsUiw,  Thiace,  Illyria,  Cod.  J.  Lib.  xi.  Tit.  W,  51,  52, 
etc.    Aiul  this  institute  ipeakB  of  it  everywhrte  under  the  Mtne  fonn. 


On  the  R&mtm  CoUmi. 


139 


it;  the  value  in  money  however  may  be  demanded,  if  such 
was  the  testator's  intention  "^.  This  passage  may  unquestion- 
ably be  explained  with  great  ease  in  reference  to  the  vithmi 
of  the  later  empire  as  described  above :  but  it  will  alijO 
admit  of  an  application  to  cutiuuod  leasee,  the  ri^ht  to  whicli, 
or  their  proiits,  may  have  been  bequeatlied.  This  is  decidedly 
the  case  with  a  passage  of  Ulpian  on  returns  to  the  census, 
biat  whoever  diil  not  return  his  iiiquilini  or  col&ttx  made  him- 
answcrablc  for  them ".  This  passage  must  be  interpreted 
with  reference  to  common  renters  or  farmers,  whom  the  land- 
owner was  to  return,  because  they  might  otherwise  escape 
the  notice  of  the  collector,  and  thereby  avoid  paying  their 
polltax:  indeed  it  would  hardly  be  applicable  to  the  heredi- 
tary voloni  of  later  times,  since  these  must  already  have  been 
entered  in  the  taxrolls,  and  so  would  have  been  known  to 
the  collector  without  the  landlord's  returning  them.  If  how- 
ever these  passages  of  the  Pandects  are  actually  to  be 
regarded  as  traces  of  the  order  of  coloni  at  an  earlier 
date,  it  cannot  at  that  time  have  spread  at  the  utmost  be- 
yond a  very  narrow  circle.  Tliis  is  proved  partly  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  old  Jurists  do  not  speak  more  fully 
and  une<)uivocaIlv  about  if,  partly  by  the  want  of  any 
settled  technical  naine  for  the  class:  for  these  very  words, 
ivfoni  and  ini/uUiniy  which  were  subsequently  used  so  do- 
ternuuately  for  it,  meant  at  that  time  in  common  use  some- 
thing totally  different,  that  is  to  say,  ordinary  free  farmers 
and  renters,   who  stood  in  no  state  of  persona!  dependence. 

In  a  still  earlier  age  our  attention  is  arrested  by  the 
following  passage  of  Varro :  Omnes  n^ri  cotufifur  hi/minihtm 
iwrviny  aut  Ithcriny  nut  ttlritifjue.  Liheris,  aut  cum  ipsi  co~ 
Inni,  nt  pferique  pauperculi  t-nm  sua  progenie  ;  aut  mer- 
rejutj-iijif  rum  roTulucliciU   iUterorum  operis  res  maJoreSj  ut 


'^  L.  113.  pr.  D.  Av  leg.  I.  (30) :  Si  qui*  inquilinax,  nine  pniodiiK  quibim  atlhac* 
rani,  JcitsreHt,  e»t  inutile^  leKKtum.  Scil  ui  Keniiniftiio  debeaiur,  ex  voluntaxc  dcfutncti 
MMuenduiii  cue,  Uivi  MuniH  et  ('oaimodus  reKiii^Mnini.  Far  \v»»  rail  aiiy  evideurc 
be  drawn  fnnu  L.  17-  §  7*  <)e  extrus.  (Cilli»tntiiK) :  Inquilmi  tfaJitmrutn  s  tutuliit  csm- 
■ri  Mieni :  Diiii  eoram,  qui  ct  tpti  inquUini  Hum,  t:t  in  codciii  caxtro  emdemquc  con- 
ditionc  ■iiiiu  Thcie  u  oolhing  ia  thU  pa»««f{e  referring  to  the  telaiioa  of  a  herciiuirily 
^rpcndent  pcwiantijr. 

*  it,  4.  ^  11.  n.  At  rnmibiiii  i  Si  quia  in()uiHnuin  vel  colonum  non  fuerit  profctuius 
nnralis  rcnaualibiis  tcncamr.     See  the  I>i«i6maliciQ  on  Uie  Roman  Finanrw,  Sect.  3. 


140 


On  the  Iloman   Ctduni, 


tindemia^  ac  foenijtcia,  admintstrant ;  Uque  qtias  oba^rarios 
noatri  vocitaruntj  et  etiam  nunc  sunt  in  Asia,  et  Aegypto^ 
et  in  lUprico  complures*'^.  Many  manuscripts  instead  of 
obacrarios  read  ohaerutos ;  and  it  has  been  suggested  that 
this  means  the  debtor-slaves^  nexi  obaerati.  These  however 
in  Yarrows  time  were  a58uredly  so  few  and  insigniBcant, 
that  tliere  could  not  possibly  be  any  occasion  for  mentioning 
them  in  a  treatise  on  agriculture ;  besides  Varro  is  not 
speaking  of  a  third  class,  distinct  from  the  paupereuH 
and  the  mercenariiy  but  only  of  a  peculiar  denomination  oi 
the  latter — iique  for  iique  sunt  etc.  The  most  natural 
explanation  therefore  is,  that  Varro  is  merely  mentioning  ope- 
raritm  as  onolher  name  for  mercefiariu^y  whether  we  suppose 
that  by  writing  otxwrarim  he  meant  to  point  out  what  he  con- 
ceived to  be  the  etymology  of  operarios,  or  whether  we  intro- 
duce opernrios  into  the  text  itself.  So  that  this  passage  does 
not  contain  a  word  about  any  hereditary  rotoni.  Cujacitis 
indeed  is  of  a  different  opinion,  since  he  makes  the  following 
express  assertion — founded  no  doubt  on  nothing  more  than 
an  arbitrary  combination  of  this  passage  with  those  above 
quoted  from  the  Pandects — that  the  Romans  in  all  ages  had 
a  peasantry  in  a  state  of  hereditary  dependence,  who  in 
earlier  limes  were  called  operant^  then  inquilini  or  colonic 
and  finally  adscriptitii '". 

On  the  other  hand  we  certainly  do  find  a  class  in  a  similar 
condition  at  a  much  earlier  period.  The  clients  under  the 
original  Roman  constitution  were  also  peasants  without  pro- 
jHTty ;  and  they  loo  lived  in  u  state  of  hereditary  dependence. 
But  it  is  not  likely  that  anyl)ody  will  maintain  that  there 
was  any  historical  connexion  between  the  ancient  clients  and 
the  later  rttloni.  They  are  sef^arated  by  a  period  of  many 
centuries,  during  which  slavery  lu  its  simple  strict  form  had 
occupied  the  place  of  almost  every  other  kind  of  personal 
dependence.  Even  tlie  cultivation  of  the  soil  was  carried  on 
almost  exclusively  by  slaves:  and  although  other  institutions, 
analogous  to  the  ancient  ones,  were  subsequently  introduced 
with   regard   to  this  class  of  slaves,  yet  assuredly  this   was 


"•  Dcrcnutlc*  i.  17- 
">  Ad.  li.  U2.  pr.  dc.  i*g.  I.     Opp,  T.  vn.  p.  1077. 


the  Roman  Cohni. 


141 


uot  done  from  the  imitation  of  an  order  of  things  which 
had  past  away  long  before;  nor  were  they  the  invention  of 
the  legislator :  it  was  the  personal  interest  of  the  landlords 
that  led  to  them.  Thenceforward  the  slaves  and  the  coioni 
subsisted  aide  by  side:  but  the  condition  of  the  former  was 
in  some  measure  assimilated  to  that  of  the  latter'",  which 
waa  more  in  accord  with  the  prevalent  opinions  of  the  age, 
and  no  doubt  also  with  its  wants.  Still  it  is  not  easy  to 
explain  how  this  class  of  cnUmi  could  first  arise.  Indivi<iuals 
became  members  of  it  by  birth  :  thus  much  we  know :  but  how 
the  whole  class  originally  grew  up,  our  lawbooks  do  not 
inform  us.  lu  later  times  at  least,  as  it  seemsj  persons  were 
not  allowed  to  enter  into  it  at  will " :  so  that  it  would  appear 
necessary  to  assume  that  at  some  period  or  other  now  un- 
known a  number  of  persons  placL-d  themselves  in  this  state; 
after  which  the  admission  into  it  was  closed,  or  at  least  ob- 
structed and  limited.  Nor  was  such  a  voluntary  entrance 
into  a  state  of  dependence  at  all  agreeable  to  the  principles 
of  the  older  Koman  law.  Nevertheless  our  only  definite 
piece  of  historical  information  is  directly  in  favour  of  this 
supposition.  It  is  found  in  a  passage  of  a  book  by  Sal- 
viauus,  written  toward  tlie  middle  of  the  fifth  century  '^ 
He  complains  about  the  great  hardships  of  the  landtax, 
which  prcKt  mainly  on  the  poor,  the  rich  contriving  to  mo- 
nopolize tlie  benefit  of  whatever  was  done  to  alleviate  it  '*. 
The  effects  of  these  hardsliips  he  enumerates  under  the  fol- 
lowing stages.  Some  persons  took  refuge  under  the  ]>ro- 
tection  of  the  rich,  made  over  the  proj>erty  of  their  land  to 
them,  and  became  farmers  upon  it :  after  all  liowever  they  had 
RUch  a  heavy  rent  to  pay,  that  in  fact  they  were  still  com- 
pelled to  bear  the  landtax,  from  which  they  had  been  trying 
1o  escape'^.      Others  quitted  their  own  land  altogether,  and 


•••  Sec  Bbore  p.  126.  ■>  See  above  y.  137- 

"  Balviantu  <Ib  gubenijuioDe  Det  v.  fl.  It. 

■*  ThU  ki^recs  entirely  viih  what  AmmianuB  !i*y»,  xvi.  ft. 

"  Cum  rtfm  awiurrittt,  amismrum  tamen  rer*tm  trthnta  pafMn/«r,  cum  pmttttiu 
uh  hi*  reeeti^it.  cajAtatio  ntm  rfvedil,  prtiprietatibut  etireut,  ft  vtctifrttibHn  obrvnn- 
Ikr.  Here  mpitatio  maitt  CTidently  be  the  UndUu,  not  the  polltBX,  m  it  in  amully 
tmdered  :  ihu  \»  provcti  both  by  the  cxprtMlon  rfrum  tribula.  and  by  the  rompUini 
•bout  itx  iniolcnihie  iircMurc  -,  Tor  the  polltax  Msurcdty  w&s  not  mo  M|{h  thai  the 
rumen  coiilil  be  ruineit  h;  it. 


I4fi 


On  the  Roman  Colmii. 


became  coioni  on  the  estate^^  of  the  rich  "".  Others  agaiit 
underwent  the  liardest  fate  of  all,  being  received  at  first  as 
free  strangers,  and  then  reduced  to  an  actual  state  of  slavery  ^. 
Now  the  second  of  these  classes  is  to  our  purpose ;  and  what 
is  said  of  it  certainly  shews  that  it  must  have  been  possihle 
for  a  person  to  become  a  eolonus  by  his  own  act.  At  the 
same  time  nothing  is  stated  touching  the  conditions  and  limi- 
tations under  which  he  could  do  so:  and  above  all  we  are  still 
left  in  doubt  whether  the  practice  spoken  of  was  sanctioned 
by  Iflw,  or  was  merely  a  prevalent  abuse,  which  however 
might  always  be  legalized  in  course  of  time  by  prescription 
(see  p.  121):  at  least  the  oppression  exercised  on  the  third 
of  the  abovcmentioned  classes  must  indisputably  have  been 
merely  a  prevalent  usurpation,  that  is,  a  piece  of  open  injustice, 
not  a  proceeding  according  to  law. 

A  very  natural  hypothesis  would  be  to  suppose  that  the 
original  voloni  were  either  all  or  in  part  slaves,  who  were 
set  free  under  the  abov  em  en  tinned  restrictions;  and  the  use 
of  the  name  patrmius  for  the  landlord  (see  rote  41)  might 
be  cited  in  support  of  this  view.  Such  a  modified  system 
of  manumission  however  would  have  been  something  entirely 
new,  and  without  any  precedent  in  the  ancient  institutions. 

The  simplest  and  easiest  way  of  accounting  for  the  origin 
of  the  coUmi  would  be»  if  we  could  prove  that  such  a  state 
of  hereditary  dependence  had  existed  immemorially  in  jwr- 
ticular  provinces:  in  that  case  it  might  not  only  have 
continued  to  subMst  under  the  Roman  dominion,  but  alsv 
have  been  extended  to  other  parts  of  the  empire '".  There 
seems  however  to  lie  an  utter  want  of  historic-al  evidence 
for  such  an  assumption. 

Gothofredus   conjectures '"   that  the  original  coloni   were 

'*'  FinidM  niajoniin  expctunt,  et  coloni  di^Htum  tiunt — ju(co  M  in^juiliiue  abjectio- 
nU  Mitdicunt,  in  hint  nf  cessitHtem  redactl  ut  exlurm  non  i'acullatib  latitum,  b«]  etiatn 
coaditionii  suae, — ct  terum  propricutc  careani,  ci  jus  libtrtaiiii  unitunt. 

"  Qmm  fsge  eim»tat  ingenua*,  vrrtuntur  in  tfrptui.  If  one  does  not  attmd  10  the 
abflvcmimiioried  clafmiflcatloa,  th*  whole  ])iu»ai;e  btcomeji  unlntcUijtible.  In  this 
wajr  It  haA  b«en  miNundentood  by  Naudel,  Administration — »ou»  Ics  regnn  de  Diock'- 
lienetc  T.  ii.  p.  101). 

^*  Thla  opinion  is  advanced  bjr  RudoTfi*  in  the  Rheniih  Miucum  for  Phitolngy.  1 1. 
p.  17fl»  bill  very  justly  ns  «  mere  conjecture,  fiof  a>  n  jMiwitivc  a»MTlion. 

'»  Parau  (od.  Theod.  (v.  9)  p.  J9fi,  imiL  t  ouuii.  ad.  i..  un.  V.  Thcod.  de  inquU. 
V.N. 


Oti  the  Roman   Cotoni. 


143 


partly  Romans  {mquiUni).,  partly  foreiners  (eoloni')  who  sub- 
mitted of  their  own  accord  to  the  Kontan  yoke  on  condition 
of  enjoying  these  rights ;  and  that  the  latter  were  hence  termed 
deditiiii.  But  not  only  does  he  make  these  assertions  without 
bringing  forward  any  evidence  to  support  them;  he  also  seems 
to  confound  totally  distinct  ages  and  notions.  In  the  days  of 
the  republic  the  name  of  deditiiii  was  usetl  for  such  conquered 
tuitions  as  surrendered  at  discretion,  for  which  act  there  were 
peculiar  solemn  forms.  The  le-v  Aelia  Sentia  applied  it  as 
a  mere  technical  expression  to  those  freedmen  who  had  suf- 
fered ignominious  punishments  during  their  slavehootl,  and  who 
consequently  on  their  manumission  were  not  to  become  civef*, 
but  merely  peregrini,  and  that  too  with  very  limited  rights. 
Neither  of  these  uses  will  suit  the  case  supposed  by  Gotho- 
ftvdus :  but  in  selecting  the  term  he  seems  to  have  had  both 
its  ancient  meanings  in  hia  head,  without  forming  any  clear 
notion  about  them. 

Winspeare  '**  assumes  that  there  was  an  internal  connexion 
between  the  institutions  of  the  old  Roman  colonies,  and  the 
tenure  of  land  in  the  provinces,  as  well  as  that  of  feudal 
times;  he  maintains  that  all  thc:>c  institutions  were  essentially- 
the  same,  that  is  to  say,  dependent  property  subject  to  cer- 
tain restrictions  and  burthens;  and  that  the  condition  of  the 
f4^07ii  \inder  the  empire  was  nothing  mure  than  a  modification 
of  that  of  the  old  colonists,  the  peasantry  being  regarded  as 
&  lower  class,  from  the  similarity  of  their  occupation  to  that 
of  the  slaves.  The  correctneKS  of  this  comparison  however 
I  must  dispute  in  all  its  parts,  though  without  entering  into 
a  detailed  examination  and  refutation  of  it. 

A  very  iiupurtunt  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  eoloni 
is  supplied  by  a  recently  discovered  constitution  of  the  Theo- 
dosian  code"'.  In  this  the  emperors  state  that  the  barbarian 
nation  of  the  Scyrians  had  now  been  subjected  by  war  to 
the  Roman  dominion:  and  permission  is  given  to  every  land- 
owner" to  apply  to  the  prefect  of  the  praetorium  for  labourers 


'»  In  the  work  (juoicd  in  note  K,  pp.  Hr2,  foil. 

■<  Lib.  V.  Til.  -1.  Const.  3.  p.  3U4,  ed.  Wcnck.  This  ordinanco  Is  by  Uonortus 
IDd  TheodMius,  dated  from  CoiutaJHinoplc  lu  tlie  year  •IM). 

**  ideoque  damut  ommbua  cepiam  ex  praedieta  gentf  htminibHS  agraa  prepnoM 
/rvfHfntonjfi,  ila  tit  omn<i  aciant,  uuceptos  t%oH  aiio  jvn  <? witn  colotiatu*  apud  tt- 


144 


On  the  Roman  Cohtti. 


out  of  tins  nation  for  his  estates ;  but  the.w  labourers  are  to 
be  placed  on  ttie  foot  of  colonic  and  in  no  respect  to  be  treated 
as  Klaves.  They  are  not  however  to  be  carried  into  any  but 
the  transmarine  provinces,  not  for  instance  into  Thrace  or 
lUyricuni.  Thus  we  have  here  a  very  remarkable,  ludeed 
the  only  known  example,  clearly  pointing  out  the  manner  in 
which  butlieii  of  lujtoni  aa  a  large  scale  originated.  The 
emperors  might  have  sold  the  barbarians  who  had  fullen  into 
their  power,  as  slaves,  but  preferred  (without  doubt  from 
politico-economical  grounds)  giving  them  away  &s  v.olont  Now 
one  might  conjecture  that  the  whole  class  sprang  up  ori- 
ginally after  the  same  manner,  so  that  this  single  instance 
should  be  only  a  repetition  of  similar  previous  ones  '*■"'.  I 
cannot  however  by  any  means  allow  that  this  is  at  all  a  neces- 
sary consequence  :  on  tlie  contrary  it  is  just  as  conceivable  that 
the  first  origin  of  the  cttitmi  was  totally  different,  and  that 
the  emperors  on  this  occasion  merely  placed  a  great  number 
of  barbarians  by  their  own  arbitrary  edict  in  a  class  which 
had  grown  up  and  been  wellknown  long  before. 

In  coDclusiou  I  must  still  speak  of  the  relation  between 
the  Koman  aoloni  and  the  villeins  of  modem  Europe,  a  class 
whicli  appears  from  very  early  times  under  a  great  variety  of 
modifications.  The  general  resemblance  between  the  two  in- 
stitutions strikes  us  at  first  sight:  but  I  caimot  see  the  slightest 
ground  for  supposing  tliat  tliere  was  any  historical  connexion 
between  them.  Thus  I  do  not  believe  that  the  origin  of 
the  coloni  can  be  accounted  for  by  assuming  that  they  were  in- 
stituted in  imitation  of  the  German  serfs,  although  the  existence 
of  such  a  class  among  the  Germans  was  known  to  the  Romans 
in  the  time  of  Tacitus '".  Still  less  reason  however  is  there  for 
imagining  that  the  German  serfs  anise  out  nf  the  Roman  rolonu 
although,  from  the  use  of  ttie  Latin  language  in  the  drawing 
up  of  the  codes  of  the  Teutonic  nations,  the  technical  terms 
of  the    Romans   were  taken  ia  this,   as  in  other  matters,  to 

future*.  Tt  Is  Mvit  btiwcvrr  that  the  passage  Btan<l<(  under  the  title  de  bonis  mUitumt 
■tvd  to  it  is  pmfible  thai  the  wldien  who  posHOt  l&nd  wcrr  the  only  penoiu  to  whom 
this  grval  advRnta|te  woh  ufl'cred. 

'*»  ThU  i»  the  way  the  pAM«ge  in  cxpliuDctI  by  Wtaek,  p.  3(MI.  note  x. 

**  Uennuiiit  c.  AV  Ccierii  servi»,  dod  in  nostrum  luonin  dcamptiB  p«r  5imiliam 
miniateriia,  uiunlur.  Suun  quisqne  anleni,  luoa  pcnues  regit.  Frumenti  modutn 
domiQiu,  «ut  pecoriii,  «ui  vadii,  u  colon*,  tnjangtl :  et  Mmui  hactfrun  psret. 


On  the  Rommi  Col/mi. 


Mo 


designate  corresponding  German  institutions.  There  is  one 
important  difFerenee  however  with  r^ard  to  the  origin  of  the 
two  classes  more  especially  noticeable.  Tliat  of  the  lloman 
coioni  occurred  at  the  time  when  the  nation  was  in  decay  : 
they  were  introduced  nrbitrarilv  in  order  to  meet  a  particular 
emergency,  but  never  ucquirud  any  special  political  importance. 
The  origin  of  the  German  serfs  h  coincident  with  the  primary 
formation  of  the  various  classes  of  society  in  the  nation;  and 
hence  they  have  exercised  the  most  important  inHiicncc  on 
its  constitution  and  civil  institutions :  in  this  respect  the  old 
Koman  clients  are  unquestionably  a  fairer  subject  of  com- 
parison with  them  than  the  coioni,  although  in  point  of  time 
they  happened   to   fall  in  exactly  with  the  latter. 

After  the  conquest  of  the  AVestem  empire  by  the  German 
nations  the  two  institutions  cAme  into  immediate  contact,  and 
their  intermixture  could  not  be  avoided.  This  hnstcncd  the 
entire  overthrow  of  the  ancient  system  of  slavery,  for  which 
the  way  liad  already  been  prepared  by  the  formation  of  the 
eoiota. 


T 


MKMNON. 


Among  the  celebrated  rames  which  strike  the  attention 
of  every  one  who  has  been  led  to  stray  in  the  twiligtit  of 
mythicai  history,  few  perhaps  rouae  a  livelier  curiosity,  or 
present  a  more  enticing  and  perplexing  problem,  than  that 
of  MeniDun.  The  oftener  it  ot-cura  to  ufi  the  more  we  feel 
inclined  to  ask :  Who  is  this  rosy  aon  of  the  mominjr,  whose 
image  towered  above  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  but,  while  it 
saluted  the  beams  of  the  rising  sun,  pointed  toward  Meroc 
and  the  Ethiopian  ocean  ?  this  founder  of  palaces  and  cita- 
deU  in  Susa  atvd  Ecbatana,  whose  home  lay  in  Cerne,  the 
farthest  island  of  the  East  ?  this  conquering  hero,  who  cut 
a  road  through  the  heart  of  Asia,  to  find  his  grave  or  to 
leave  his  monuments  on  the  coast  of  Syria  and  the  shores 
of  the  J'ropontis?  Without  hoping  to  furnish  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  this  question,  I  feel  tempted  to  review  the  legends 
relating  to  this  renownett  person,  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring 
in  what  manner  they  may  be  best  connected  and  reconciled. 
The  subject  has  already  employed  the  pens  of  so  many 
learned  and  ingenious  men,  that  little,  if  anything,  can  remain 
to  be  done  for  the  collection  of  materials:  but  it  also  pre- 
sents so  many  Hides,  that  it  may  not  be  useless  to  consider 
it  fruui  une  which,  ttuuigh  it  has  not  been  entirely  overlooked, 
seems  not  to   liave  been  sufliciently  noticed. 

The  immediate  object  of  the  inquiry  proposed  is  to  trace 
the  Greek  tradition  about  Meuinmi  to  its  source,  or  at  least 
so  far  as  to  ascertain  the  nature,  historical  or  imaginary,  of 
the  ground  from  which  it  sprang.  It  will  therefore  be  ne- 
cessary to  begin  by  mentioning  the  earliest  form  in  which 
it  appears    to   us  among   the  Greeks,  and    the   new   features 


Memnmi. 


147 


which    it   fifradually  assumes   or   discloses   under   the   hands 
through  which  it  aiiccessively  passed. 

We  have  rea»n  to  congratulate  ourselves  on  the  pre- 
vation  of  the  few  lines  in  which  Memnon  is  named  or 
Shidcd  to  in  the  Odyssey  (iv.  188.  xi.  .121).  But  for  this 
lucky  chance  some  critics  would  prolwbly  have  asserted  that 
the  legend  was  wholly  unknown  in  the  age  of  Homer,  and 
it  would  have  been  impiissiblf  to  refute  them.  That  it  doe« 
not  occur  in  the  Iliud^  where  there  would  have  been  some 
difficidty  in  iiitnidut-iug  it,  cannot  raise  a  reasonable  doubt. 
£ustathius  indeed  informs  us  that  there  were  persons  who 
instead  of  mpt  a^vfiovwi  A\BtoTr^asy  Ih  A.  423,  read  utTO. 
Minvova-i  A'Sioiri}a'ii  iiiia^'intng  that  the  hero  had  given  his 
name  to  an  KtHiopian  tribe'!  But  wc  may  very  well  dis- 
pense with  this  conceit,  and  still  believe  that  the  exploits  of 
Memnon  before  Troy  were  as  familiar  to  the  poet  of  the 
Iliad  as  those  of  Achilles.  The  Odyssey  however  only  speaks 
of  Memnon  as  the  son  of  Eos,  as  the  most  beautiful  of  mor- 
tals, and  as  the  vanquisher  of  Antilochus.  Hesiod,  who  calls 
him  king  of  the  Kthiopians  (Th.  985),  adds  the  name  of  his 
lather  Tithonus,  whose  history  is  related  in  the  Homerie 
hymn  (Ad  Venerem  *2I5 — 239).  It  may  have  been  about  the 
tuuue  time  that  Aretinus  made  the  adventures  of  the  Ethio- 
pian warrior  the  most  prominent  subject  of  an  epic  pnem, 
the  v'Ethiopis,  of  which  we  only  know  that  it  described  the 
combat  in  which  Memnon  was  slain  by  Achilles,  and  how 
his  mother  obtained  Jupiter^s  leave  to  endow  her  son,  as  she 
had  his  father,  with  immortality.  But  as  there  is  good  reason 
for  believing  that  Quintus  Calaber  in  the  first  five  books  of 
his  poem  followed  the  ^-thiopis  very  closely,  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable that  most  of  the  features  nf  his  narrative  were  drawn 
from  Aretinus,  and  formed  a  part  of  the  earliest  tradition. 
In  his  second  book,  after  the  hopes  of  the  Trojans  have  been 
dashed  to  the  ground  by  the  death  tif  FNmthesilea  and  her 
Amazons,  Memnon  arrives  to  the  relief  of  the  city  with  a 
countless  host  of  Ethiopians.  In  his  first  interview  with 
Priam  he  describes  the  immortal  life  of  his  father,  and  his 


148 


MenmoH. 


mother  Eos,  the  floods  of  Tethys,  the  uttermost  bounds  of 
the  earth  on  the  cast,  aud  the  whole  of  his  progress  from 
the  verge  of  Oceanu»  to  Troy,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
had  broken  a  vast  army  of  the  Solymi  who  attempted  to 
impede  his  march.  The  next  oiorning  he  slays  Amilochus, 
and  then  meets  Achilles,  with  whom  he  maintains  a  hm^  and 
doubtful  combat.  After  his  fall  the  air  is  darkened,  and  at 
his  mother's  bidding  the  winds  lift  his  corpse  stript  of  his 
armour  above  the  ground.  The  blood  which  drops  from  it 
OD  the  plain  forms  a  stream  called  by  those  who  dwell 
at  the  foot  of  Ida  the  Paplilagoniau,  which  every  year 
on  the  return  of  the  fatal  day  again  runs  blood,  and  sends 
forth  a  loathsome  stench,  as  of  a  putrefying  sore.  The 
body  is  borne  to  the  banks  of  the  ^sepus,  where  is  a 
grove  sacred  to  the  Nymphs,  who  mourn  over  the  hero. 
His  faithful  Ethiopians  are  likewise  gifted  witli  supernatural 
vigour,  and  enabled  to  follow  their  king  through  the  nir  to 
his  resting  place.  Eo^  descends  with  the  Months  and  the 
Pleiads  in  her  train  to  bewail  her  son.  At  first  she  threatens 
to  wthhold  her  presence  from  Olympus,  and  for  a  whole 
day  she  keeps  the  world  wrapt  in  darkness.  But  the  thun- 
der of  Jupiter  shakes  her  resolution.  The  Ethiopians  bury 
their  king,  and  arc  changed  into  birds  which  bear  the  name 
of  Memnon,  and  once  a  year  flock  to  his  tomb,  sprinkle  it 
with  <lust,  and  contend  with  one  another  in  pairs  rill  at 
least  one  of  each  has  fallen.  Memnon  himself,  whether  in 
Hades  or  in  Elysium,  rejoices  in  these  funeral  honours.  His 
tomb  on  the  banks  of  the  .E-sepus  was  shewn  in  the  time 
of  Strabo,  and  near  it  was  a  village  called  by  his  name*. 

If  Quintus  took  this  account  of  Memnon's  burial  from 
Arctinus,  jEschylus  must  have  drawn  the  legend  which  he 
worked  up  into  his  "^vvwrTOffla  from  a  different  source. 
For  there  can  scarcely  lie  a  doubt  that  in  that  tragedy  lie 
represented  Eos  as  carrying  her  son's  corpse  away,  not  to 
the  banks  of  the  ^sepus,  but  to  those  either  of  the  Nile 
or  of  the  Choaspes.  And  the  latter  seems  the  more  pro- 
bable Aupjxtsition,  especially  if  Dr  Uutler  (Fragnim.  .iCsch. 
I  (>.())    is    right   in   his  conjecture   that   Stral>o   is  alluding   to 


3  Stnho  XIII.  )>.  587. 


MemnoH. 


149 


play,  where  he  says  that  ^schylus  had  spoken  of 
MerouoD^s  L'issinn  {>arentage^.  ;F3s<:hylua  wa.s  perhaps  the 
first  Greek  poet  who  brought  the  hero  to  Troy  from  Susa; 
and  it  is  maiiifeiit  enough  why  a  dramatic  p3et  sliould  have 
adopted  this  legend,  which  gave  a  new  and  deeper  interest 
to  tlie  coiulmt  between  Meninon  and  his  Greek  antagonist, 
in  preference  to  any  otiiers  that  he  might  have  heard  of. 
The  couuexion  between  Meninon  and  Susa  was  so  celebrated 
in  the  time  of  Herodotu.s,  probably  by  means  of  the  drama, 
that  the  historian  {({x^ks  of  the  royal  palace  at  Susa  simj>Iy 
as  Ttt  fiaixiKtiia  tu  M^fitfovta  KoXtiOfieva  (v.  53),  which  he 
explains  in  the  following  chapter  by  saying  "^^utrwv,  tovto 
ydfj  Me/iwjwoi'  atrTv  KaXetTui.  In  vii.  151  the  mmic  epitliot 
is  used,  as  if  tlie  city  had  been  known  principally  through 
this  legend.  In  what  manner  jKschylus  explained  the  origin 
of  lliis  connexion  we  have  no  means  of  guessing.  Hut  it  is 
not  jirobalile  tlint  he  knew  much  aliout  the  hixtory  related 
by  DityJorus  (ii.  2S),  who  informs  us,  that  rt  the  time  of 
the  Trojan  war  Tithttnus  governed  PrrHia  ns  vieeroy  of  the 
yriaii  king  Teiitamus,  who  was  then  master  of  Asia  (which 
I  with  the  language  of  Plato,  De  Legg.  iii.  p.  296  Bek.), 
and  that  his  son  Memnon,  tlieu  in  the  prime  of  life,  built 
the  palace  on  the  citadel  at  Susa,  which  remained  standing 
till  the  days  of  the  Persian  monarcliy,  and  was  called  from 
him  Memnonia.  and  likewise  made  a  highway  through  the 
country  which  retained  the  same  name.  Diodorus  adds  that 
the  Ethiopians  likewi.se  claimed   Meninon  as  a  native  of  their 

'  f  OM  this  geuenl  ezpreHion  becuiie  the  meaning  of  Stnbo's  iranU  is  not 

^ulte  defer,  lie  uyii  (xv.  p.  "J'iO)  Ar/on-rui  H  kuI  Kivtrioi  ol  ^ovaivt.  Oqiri  Si 
tal  ATa;(vXo«  tijv  iirfripa  Hf^I'uvov  Ktasiav.  ProfciWir  Welcker  (.'f^flch,  I'rilogie 
p.  43A)  undantfendA  by  thU  that  .^l^achyliiN  tiod  somewhere  or  other  called  Cinla 
(ibe  iMitd  of  the  tissUns)  tlie  mother  of  .Mcmnoti :  and  he  thinks  it  improbable 
(b«  thu  should  bare  bccti  in  the  yi-xoirriio-iK.  Iicciiuu;  tn  hare  spnken  of  C^iuU 
u  MemiKin'ft  mother  in  the  ume  pUy  whifh  reprexcnteil  him  u  the  Rcm  ol'  Em 
■r  Jlctnent  would  have  bred  confusion.  But  thin  mukt  depend  an  the  context 
vbtch  i>  Uml  On  the  other  hand  1  doubt  whether  ^Strabo'n  words  wiU  bear  die 
emtnictina  Prof.  Welcker  puts  on  them.  The  mure  obvious  sMue  of  them  iwems 
10  be,  that  jCschylus  had  applied  the  epithet  Cwftiui  to  the  mother  of  Mcmnun. 
KaA  this  he  might  have  done,  usin^;  it  with  a  poetical  Utiiude  which  would  not 
Mrptlie  ua  in  ;K«chylut,  even  if  the  lincft  quoted  hy  Athemrits  (11.  p.  tli;^  llisd.) 
referred  to  .Mrmnon,  and  were  taken  (as  Prof.  Welcker  believes)  fmm  ihe  "^vx— 
fr%min.     All  thai  they  nty  of  him  (if  be  is  the  subject  of  theoi)  is:    r<W«  nliv 


150 


Memnon. 


country,  and  shewed  there  ancient  palaces  which  to  that  day 
were  called  Mcmnonia.  At  all  events  the  Kthiopians  wbu 
followed  Memnon  to  Troy  carried  his  bones  buck,  to  Ti- 
thonus'. 

Pnusanias,  in  describing  the  painting  of  Polygnotus  in 
the  Lesche  at  Delphi  (x.  .SI.  H,),  combines  the  two  accounts^ 
we  have  been  liitherto  considering,  Birds^  he  says,  were  setn 
wrought  in  Meninon's  chlnmys,  and  these  were  the  birds 
calltnl  Meninoni'des,  wliich,  ils  was  generally  believed  near  the 
HellesjKjnt,  were  msoil  tt>  go  on  certain  days  to  the  tomb  of 
Afeuinoii,  and  sweep  it  with  tlu'ir  wings,  where  it  was  not 
covereil  with  trees  or  herbage,  and  sprinkle  it  with  the 
water  of  the  .■'Escpiis.  Polygnotus  had  represented  a  naked 
Ethiopian  boy  standing  by  the  side  of  Memnon.  This,  Pau- 
sanias  observes,  was  because  Memnon  was  king  of  the  Ethio- 
pians. Yet  he  had  come  to  Troy,  not  from  Kthiupia,  but 
from  the  Persian  city  of  Susa  and  the  river  Clioaspes,  having 
Aubdued  all  the  nations  that  lay  in  his  way.  And  the  Phry- 
gians stiU  shew  the  road  by  which  he  led  his  army,  for 
which  he  had  chosen  the  shortest  cuts:  it  was  the  same 
aiong  which  the  state-couriers  travelled.  This  tradition  he 
repeats  i.  *2.  S. 

What  is  thus  put  together  by  Diodorus  and  Pausaniaa, 
was  torn  asunder  by  other  writers,  as  Philostratus  (V,  Apotl. 
VI.  3.  Heroic,  p.  672.  Ic.  1.  7),  Endocia.  p.  Hi,  who  distin- 
guish between  an  Ethiopian  Memnon  who  reigned  at  the 
time  of  the  Trojan  war,  and  a  Trojan  of  the  same  name  on 
whom  Achilles  avenged  the  death  of  the  blooming  Antilo- 
chus.  On  the  other  hand  there  was  a  legend  wliich  ascribed 
the  foundation  of  the  palace  at  Ecbatuna  to  Memnon^;  and 
beside  the  Memnouiuiu  on  the  ^.Esepus  there  was  one  near 

*  jElian  Hist.  An.  r.  1.  lliuii  naticei  hnth  ]e(i:end8 :  Xtyovaw  ol  t>jv  Tpi^dia  i-rt 
•Iiti>iiirr»«  ^piop  <li>u[  Tt  Ti*  -nj^  'HoM  Mtftuoift.  th  t«^>(V  nvrrov.  vat  airr6f  /^hf 
tAv  irtKpot  »1t  to  lEoioa  Ta'  avTo  yitfifoi/tia  vfitrcvfitvii  Inri  Trft  fttfTftAt  K^fUtrOJifr* 
fitriatpow  it  rail"  tpdvtoif  Tvx*i'  «ij3*iJ(r«iiiB  t^t  icpoOTfuovtim  tti-ri,  AfOfiaXfoBai  it 
al  Tiji*  irniX.t]¥  ti^u  iirrav^a  ciXXait, 

■  By  which  .Simimide*  i*  uncertain.  StnbD  **y%  Tat^ifvak  \iytrat  TAifwrnv  rtpl 
nJXTO¥  T^v  ^vftiai  irapa  Baiav  ttoTOftip,  tot  t^pixt  Stfiuiiili^x  ay  M«^u^i>i  Sidv- 
piftfia  TWIT  AoXiaKwi^.  A  youngcf  SimonidcA  H>>d  visited  Meroc,  and  hnd  written 
on  Ethiopia:  Plin.  N.  U.  vi.Sfi.  One  of  these  Syrian  Menmonia  i»  alluded  to  by 
(>[>piin,  C^TlPg.  IT.  152.  TTnii^it  ^  'PV  fi"^^  &a\epat  fH^piOtv  a'Atodc  MtfurorMU 
irefi'l  vao"  "f    Avtriptot  witripos  M'nvovn  (i-«\-i;iM>ff»  nXtrT^t/  yofctr    Hfityoftifv, 


Memnwt. 


151 


Paltus  in  Syria  on  the  river  Bmlus,  which  had  been  spoken  of 
l»y  Simonides  in  a  poem  called  Meiiiiiuu  (Strabo  xv.  p.  728*) 
and  another  on  the  river  Beleos  two  stadia  distant  from 
Ptoleniais  (Josepli.  Bell.  Jud.  ii.   10.  2). 

The  great  majority  of  voices  however  agree  in  tracing 
the  ori^tt  of  IMemnon  to  Ethiopia.  The  only  notion  at- 
tached to  tliis  word  in  the  Homeric  age  seems  to  have  been 
that  it  was  a  region  extending  to  the  utmost  verge  of  the 
earthf  bounded  by  the  Ocean  stream,  and  that  its  inhabitants, 
blest  with  the  immediate  presence  of  the  rising  and  the  set- 
ting sun,  were  the  most  innocent  and  the  happiest  of  mortals. 
All  that  Homer  could  have  hud  to  relate  about  the  march 
of  Memnon,  wa£  that  he  came  from  a  far  country  in  the 
East.  The  Homeric  distinction  between  the  eastern  and 
western  Ethiopians  (Od.  i.  S4),  which  was  grounded  on  a 
view  of  geography  tliat  had  long  ceased  to  be  understood 
in  tlie  age  of  Herodotus,  was  nevertheless  probably  the 
occasion  of  that  which  this  historian  adopted  between  the 
Asiatic  Ethiopians  on  the  borders  of  India  and  those  of 
Africa  (vii.  70).  The  name  of  Ethiopia  however  was  gra- 
dually confined  to  Africa^  and  there  to  the  upper  course  of 
the  Nile;  and  the  Greek  travellers  who  were  curious  about 
the  history  of  Memnon  expected  to  find  the  fullest  and 
surest  infonnatioii  about  him  in  Egypt,  which  appeared  to 
have  l>een  either  the  country  of  his  birth,  or  the  scene  of 
his  earliest  adventures. 

The  Egyptians  were  probably  consulted  very  early  oa 
this  subject;  and  their  learned  priests  can  have  found  no 
difSculty  in  satisfying  the  Greeks  who  inquired  of  them. 
But  their  answers  would  vary  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  question  proposed.  If  Memnon  was  described  as  a 
royal  conqueror  who  had  traversed  Asia  and  subdued  all 
the  nations  he  parsed  througli,  he  would  naturally  be  com- 
pared with  some  one  or  other  of  the  mighty  kings  of  Egypt, 
the  fame  of  whose  exploits  had  once  resounded  through  the 
habitable  world,  and  miglit  have  been  preserved  by  the  faint 
and  confused  echo  of  the  Greek  tradition.      He  might  have 


*  tfygin.  223.  Domui  Cyri  Kgis  in  Kcbaunis,  quant  fedt  ftleranon  Upitliba« 
ruib  ct  ctndidla  rtactis  turo. 


152 


Mettmon. 


hecn  that  Sesostris  whose  invincible  urms  had  penetrated 
eastward  as  far  as  the  Ganges,  and  wet^tward  to  the  extre- 
mity of  Thrace:  or  thot  Osymiuidyas  whose  Boctriaa  expe- 
dition was  recorded  in  the  sculptures  of  his  §epulchral  palace 
at  Thel>eg  (Diodor.  i.  47-  55).  On  the  other  hand  if  the 
Ethiopian  hero  was  to  he  considered  as  the  son  of  Aurora, 
as  a  youth  of  more  ,than  mortal  beauty,  whose  untimely 
death  had  cloi^dcd  the  face  of  nature  with  sadnesH,  and  was 
commemorated  every  year  with  mournful  rites,  the  Egyptian 
mythology  could  produce  a  being  of  similar  character  and 
fate.  Such  was  the  mysterious  person  who  was  revered  as  1 
the  guardian  of  Thebes,  and  whose  statue,  in  the  Rnmaa 
period,  was  often  heard  to  utter  a  plaintive  strain".  The 
Egyptian  title  by  which  he  was  known  at  Thebes  was 
Phamcnoph  or  Amenophis",  which  came  near  enough  to  the 
Greek  name  of  Memnon  to  conlirm  the  supposition  of  their 
identity. 

The  name  of  this  Amenophis  appears  among  the  kings 
of  Egypt " :  but  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  he  was 
a  merely  ideal  being,  though  his  character  and  attributes  have 
been  the  subject  of  much  dispute  among  the  learned.  Our 
present  purpose  does*  not  require  thai  we  should  enter  very 
deeply  into  this  question,  though  we  must  not  entirely  pass 
over  it.  Jablonski  was,  I  believe,  the  first  writer  who  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  the  famous  vocal  statue  did  not 
represent  any  historical  personage,  hut  was  merely  syml^olical 
axil]  mystical.  This  he  thought  was  plain  from  the  legends 
concerning  Amenophis,  as  well  as  from  his  bi?ing  called  the 
son  of  Aurora;  and  he  conjectures  that  this  statue,  as  well 
as  the  pyramids,  were  destined  by  the  priests  to  the  purpose 

'  An  inffcripilon  on  the  coUmnii,  lu  corrected  by  .UcoltH  (Tnuiutctiotu  of  the 
Mumch  ACMlemy  T.  it.  p.  43).  ^iwvq  i'  MupfiM  n**  triiXni  fioi  yiifwoiies  ra  T«9if 
yoaoa. 

*  Pau*.  I.  41.  3.  fl&ov  KaOrjjKiMw  iyaX^a  ^x'!*"  (according  to  Scaligar't  oinrM- 
tion)  M«^ot>n  niKr/MO^ovirir  ol  woWoi.  toJ/taii'  yap  if>aatv  «f  AlBt^rlat  opfufiUvMl 
it  Aiyirirrou  nixl  ttjii  dxj"  Sowffw*.  (iX\ii  ydp  ov  Mr'tiyova  ol  Ott/Jaioi  \ryovvi, 
^ftfrv'Pa  ci  tlvat  rmu  iyx-tpSon>  ov  -roira  dyak/ui  if*,  tfxavffa  ii  ijil  Kal  T\Jmn 
OTiuv  tpftfitiMiiy  rltiai  tai^tq  «<)  iyuXfitt  a  IL.ofifii'viyi  iuKo^t. 

'  STnceUuii  >.  p.  2fiH  ed.  Bonn.   Aiyilir-row  fx.  i^aeiKevatv  'A^eva^i*.     O&tm  hi 

Mo\vat90%  it  'A0qiruios  la^ropil. 


Memnon. 


153 


I 
I 
I 


I 


of  astronomical  observation!)  (Opusc.  I.  p.  27).  The  name 
AmeDophis  he  interprets  either  ^lardian  of  the  city  of 
y^hebee  '^  or  announcer  of  good  tidingft,  (juasi  dicafl  ^uay- 
'ycX«rTi7(,  and  he  refers  this  meaning  as  well  as  the  other 
to  the  astronuuiical  observations  of  which  he  conceives  the 
statue  to  have  been  an  instrument.  Creuzer,  as  might  be 
supposed,  takes  a  different  view  of  the  subject,  though  he  is 
perfectly  willing  to  adopt  Jablonski's  first  explanation  of  the 
word,  to  wliich,  as  he  remarks,  the  etymology  of  the  Greek 
Dame  corresponds  so  closely  that  it  might  be  taken  not  for 
a  corruption  but  iur  a  translation  of  the  Egyptian".  This 
Phanienojihis-Meiniion  is^  according  to  Creuzer,  identical  with 
Osjmandyas,  and  closely  resembles  the  Persian  Mithras.  All 
his  attributes  and  legends  jioint  to  the  vicissitudes  of  light 
and  darkness,  the  changes  of  the  seasons,  the  courses  of  the 
planets.  He  is  himself  of  dazzling  beauty,  but  his  followers 
who  bring  their  offerings  to  his  tomb  shew  the  complexion 
of  night.  He  answers  the  greeting  of  Iiis  worship|)crs  with 
a  joyful  strain  when  he  is  touched  by  the  first  rays  of  the 
rising  sun,  but  in  the  evening  his  voice  is  plaintive  like  t!ie 
tone  of  a  broken  chord.  He  is  Horus  in  the  prime  of  liis 
strength  and  beauty;  but  again  he  is  doometl  to  on  untimely 
death,  and  is  bewailed  as  Mancros,  and  corresponds  to  Linus 
and  Adonis  and  the  other  heroes  of  tliis  numerous  class. 
Another  German  writer'*  has  proposed  a  very  singular  hypo- 
thesis about  the  Egyptian  Memnon,  which  perhaps  deserves 
to  be  notictrd,  though  it  is  very  ililficalt  to  describe  it  with 
the  necessary  brevity,  without  making  it  appear  more  fan- 
ciful and  arbitrary  than  it  really  is.  He  compares  Memnon, 
not  with  the  young  victorious  god  Horus,  but  with  his  van- 
quished adversary  Typhon,  who  though  overpowered  still 
retains  a  feeble  and  lingering  existence,  and  from  time  to 
time  sends  forth  a  faint  note  of  lamentation  over  his  own 
sufferings.      He    represents  Iiowever    no    physical    object   or 


'■  In  one  of  UlC  iiWCTipiiciW   yiinviav  ftu^atam  -wpofiaxot- 

*'  Sjnnbolik  i.  p.  4,^3.     He  icfera  eo  PUu>,  ('HtyliiK  p.  noit,  who  My»  itf  AgM- 

\o  'A-yafifVcBii'— the  mo*t  Mtentiol  quality,   CreiiMT  ohwrvca,  of  a   gutrdiui  moA 
r  EflMnptort. 

'•  Wilhelm  nm  SchBts  in  Uw  Wienw  Jahrhiicher  Mi.  p.  10?. 

Vol..  II.  No.  4.  U 


154 


Memrum, 


event,  but  is  the  symbol  of  a  period  in  the  history  of  the 
nation,  one  of  primitive  simplicity,  which  had  past  away  and 
lived  only  in  memory,  having  been  replaced  by  one  of  strife 
and  conquest,  power  and  pomp,  a  cjilculating  and  oppressive 
i-ule.  *^  Seijostris,  whose  name  according  to  dablonski  means 
the  prince  who  gazes  on  or  adores  the  sun,  probably  repre- 
sents a  new  dynasty.  He  is  a  conqueror,  and  the  destroyer 
of  tlie  earlier  principle;  with  him  too  begin  new  buildings; 
obelisks  and  pyramids  succeed  to  the  colossal  images  of  former 
times.  These  ancient  statues  continue  to  exist,  hut  the  legend 
describes  them  as  mourning  over  the  glories  of  the  past,  and 
as  fostering  a  languid  hope  of  a  future  revival'^."'' 

The  reader  will  perceive  from  this  specimen,  which  is 
perhaps  but  a  scanty  one,  how  copious  a  harvest  of  conjec- 
ture the  subject  is  capable  of  yielding.  But  tlie  question 
we  are  at  present  mainly  concerned  with,  is  not  what  no- 
tions the  Egyptians  attached  to  their  Memnon,  but  in  what 
manner  he  l>ccame  known  to  the  Greeks  so  as  to  fill  a  con- 
spicuous part  in  their  heroic  poetry.  This  question  has 
been  profoundly  investigated  by  Mr  Jacobs,  in  a  very  learned 
and  instructive  essay  published  in  the  Memoirs  of  the  Iloyal 
Academy  of  Munich,  Vol.  ii,  and  reprinted  among  his  mis- 
cellaneous works.  But  as  it  may  probably  not  be  found  in 
many  libraries  in  this  country,  it  may  be  doing  a  service  to 
those  of  our  readers  who  take  an  interest  in  such  researches, 
to  lay  before  them  the  substance  of  his  opinions  and  argu- 
ments in  some  detail. 

The  essay  begins  with  an  enumeration  of  the  monuments 
of  Memnon  scattered  over  Asia,  for  the  knowledge  of  which, 
it  is  observed,  we  arc  indebted  chiefly  to  incidental  allusions. 
One  of  these,  wliich  I  have  not  yet  mentioned,  is  found  in 
Dictys  (De  Bello  Trojano  vi.   10),  where  after  the  death  of 


"  He  coQjecturea  that  the  Moiindiii  hennl  proceeded  not  from  the  itatae  ititdf, 
but  from  Hnuc  lc«»l  caiuc  that  operated  in  iu  vlciaity  (as  Humboldt  tpcaks  of 
nibiemncoai  itCHUidi  that  issue  at  dunrise  from  the  roclu  on  the  Oronoko),  and 
thai  this  phcnomrnoti  was  cither  applied  by  the  adhereniii  of  the  ancient  ayateiD  to 
u)  existing  statue,  or  that  a  statue  was  erected  there  to  take  advanta){e  of  it>  It 
is  to  be  regretted  that  ho  inijenia'an  a  h)-pothni»  thould  not  hive  tlie  niiimtcst  par- 
ticJe  of  hiitorical  ground  to  stand  upon.      Sec  however    Plutarch   De  I>.    ct    Of. 

cao. 


Memnon- 


1« 


Menmon  his  sister  Hcmera  goes  in  search  of  liia  botly.  At 
Paphus"  she  meets  with  the  PhceniciaiiK  whom  Memnon  had 
sent  by  sea,  while  he  himself  Led  the  main  body  of  his  army 

■  over  Mount  Caucasus  to  Troy.  From  them  she  receives  aa 
urn  containing  his  remains,  with  which  she  sails  to  Phcenicia 
and  there  buries   them  in  a  region    called    Palliochis.       Mr 

■  Jacobs  places  this  story  in  a  new  light  by  comparing  it  with 
the  legend  of  the  search  made  by  Isis  after  the  body  of 
Osiris,  which  she  finds  in  Phoenicia  (Plutarch  De  la.  et  Os. 
C.I5).  He  proceeds  to  notice  the  various  hypotheses  that  have 
been  formed  about  these  monuments.  Are  they  the  works 
of  a  conqueror  who  traversed  Asia  ?  If  so,  how  is  it  that 
we  find  so  many  sepulchres  erected  in  honour  of  him  ?  Are 
we  to  suppose  that  one  really  contained  his  remains,  and  that 
the  others  were  cenotaphs?  Or  will  the  difficulty  he  solved 
if  we  separate  the  Trojan  from  the  Egyptian  Memnon,  and 
each  of  these  from  the  Assyrian.  This  method  Mr  J.  justly 
pronounce!*  an  arbitrary  expedient :  and  it  may  be  addcti  that 
it  merely  multipUes  the  questions  instead  of  answering  them. 
But  on  the  other  hand  with  equal  Judgement  he  rejects  the 
vain  attempt  of  Diodorus  to  connect  the  various  legends  by 
a  historical  tliread.  "  This  mode  of  interpretation,'"  be  re- 
marks, "  being  that  which  is  most  agreeable  to  the  most 
vulgar  understanding,  has  for  this  very  reason  always  fuuud 
many  partisans,  and  even  now,  though  its  defects  have  been 
long  perceived,  it  has  not  yet  lost  all  its  influence.  Ima- 
ginary personages  in  human  fonn,  and  mostly  decked  with 
crowns  and  robes  of  state,  still  continue  to  play  a  usurped 
part  on  the  theatre  of  ancient  history.""     It  is  indeed  much 

^•sier  and  safer   to  laugh  at  these  phantoms  than  to  attempt 
to  dethrone  them. 

Mr  J.  then  addresses  himself  to  a  differenl  class  of 
critics,  and  asks  whether  there  is  any  better  reason  for 
considering  Memnon  as  a  king  and  conqueror,  than  for 
viewing    Thoth    or    Osymandyaa  or  Dionysus  in   that  light. 


'*  There  is  a  coDrubiim  in  the  narrative  between  Papbu*  uid  Rliiidai^  aa  tlic 
reader  may  see  bjr  looking;  back  to  iv.  e.  4.  And  yet  Jt  muit  be  owing  to  Uie 
•uthor,  not,  an  one  of  the  cumnieatatun  teenii  to  have  Mispectcd,  to  the  tmiumhcnt: 
for  tlcinera  would  naturally  bcpin  her  ««rcii  b  Cyprua.  FaUiochia  is  probably 
nmncctrd  cither  with  I'alius  or  the  Uelcus. 


156 


Memnon. 


The  fiibles  relating  to  the  last  of  these  mythical  persons 
have  likewise  beou  forced  into  the  shape  of  a  political  his- 
tory. Yet  no  one  believes  that  they  have  any  other  kind 
of  historical  foundation  thiin  the  propagation  of  a  certain 
worsliip  from  the  remote  East  to  the  shoreft  of  the  .,'Kgeau. 
And  such  Mr  J.  conceives  to  be  tlie  real  import  of  the 
various  legends  concerning  Memnon.  He  too  was  a  god, 
whose  rites  were  carried  from  Ethiopia  through  Egypt  and 
Asia  to  the  coast  of  the  Propontis. 

To  clear  the  way  for  his  hypothesis  Mr  J.  combats  the 
opinion  of  Marsham  and  Jablnnski,  who  imagined  that  Ethi- 
opia in  the  fable  of  Memnon  included  Upper  Egypt.  He 
contends  that  according  to  the  greater  part  of  the  ancient 
authors  this  name  was  applied  to  the  country  of  which 
Meroe  was  the  capital.  Vhilostratus  asficrtcd  that  Memnon 
was  worshipped  at  Meroe  as  well  as  at  Memphis  by  Ethi- 
opians as  well  as  by  Egyptians'',  ami  that  he  cherished 
his  hair  in  honour  of  the  Nile,  which  pose  in  Ethiopia'*; 
and  Agatharchides  mentions  that  the  Menmonia  at  Thebes 
were  l>uiU  by  Ethiopians  '".  The  dijscriptions  of  Lycophron"* 
and  Quintus  Calaber'",  which  speak  of  Ceme  and  the  southern 
Ocean,  point  the  same  way  :  and  the  exceeding  beauty  for 
which  Homer  praises  the  hero,  is  a  characteristic  not  of  tlie 
Egyptians  but  of  the  Ethiopians,  who,  Herodotus  aaysv  were 


**  IleroiCA  pi  fKKI.  Qvvtwiv  aimi  Kara  Mtpiffw  tcai  Mi/i^tp  AJTvirrin  ko)  Attt' 
owMt,  iwttitiM  duTlva  irptoT^ir  b  ii'Xtm-  Jti^oXXy. 

'*  laiMg.  I.  7<  e  Trnv  (ioirrpvxiiiv  dtrraxvv,  o3i  olfiai  NtiXip  Srpurftf  "SwtXoB  "Xiv 
Alyiimoi  fiiv  c^'^ufft  ruiv  tKliaXat,  Al9itnrtt  ci  rac  Tn/yaK.  TbCTC  U  ft  curtouft 
inisprinl  in  tlie  Gcrmui,  which  is  nol  notictxl  in  the  aarrignulaz  dast  er  $tin  iJtef 
diffm  iitHiopitchrn  JVi/  fftnuittcrl  Anif. 

"  Ap.  Phou  p.  448  Bek.  The»e  LihiopianB  however  arc  here  represented  w 
COmpumLucly  recoil  iovuden :  he  is  tpmkinK  of  the  K^ld  mines  an  the  Rcil  Sea: 
tVptfrat  fiiv  inro  twj>  irptartay  Toii  Tc>irnu  t^aoiXiuiii  -ran  fttrtiWiaw  p)  ^vfrtt,  iuXiwt 
a  inepyovva -rori  flip  AWiowutv  irl  njc  A'iyi'wrap  ■wXn^ttvv  ovvtXBvirrov  aal  woXXd 
tax  -wAKttt  i-nj  t^povpiivittrrot  {iiip'  wv  Kal  Ta  Hefi^vtui  aifTtTtXiirBai  ^of),  mri 
Si  Nq'JMD  Kcci   llf^ffttif  twtKpaTnaatn-wv. 

"  Cu*.  IB.  Auror&  goa  forth  Ti0«»ii.  iv  Ko(-nfot  -r^t  Kipint*  WXae  Avrawa. 
On  the  other  posilinoa  of  ihia  fibuloiis  tBlinii  the  reader  ttuy  canmilt  HusUth.  mI. 
Uionys.  PericB-  218,  who  sposki  of  the  -rnt-urt-ruTo.  AW»o)n?«7  Airw  iw'  'Qmedtr^ 
itvfta-nif  -rapn  -nixxta  Kifivifv.  There  w  a  learned  and  luminous  di»»crt«llon  on 
iJ)i»  Rubjecl  in  Vblcker'n  AtylhUrJtt  Gfogrophie.  p.  MSI. 

"  II.  118.  lUemnoa  deiiCTihc»  <iKapdTw  wipara  x^i'^t.  timoXiat  ri  'lUXiov  ««i 
nrntiaw  dw"  a!H(iiM>ri>  Kc\«ir6ot>  MixpK  iirl   Upid/toto  woXtv  nui  Vfi»oi>iti  'lift. 


^m 


emnon. 


the  finest  men  in  llic  world'^.  All  these  indications  favour 
the  supposition,  that  the  Egyptians  became  acquainted  with 
iMeuinoD  in  the  same  way  and  through  the  same  channel 
as  that  by  which  they  acquired  their  knowleiige  of  Amnion. 
The  latter  god  came  from  the  Ethiopian  Meroe*',  the  central 
seat  of  his  woriihip,  to  his  still  more  renowned  sanctuaries 
in  Egypt  and  Libya.  Thebes  in  Upper  Egypt  was  a  co- 
lony of  Meroe,  and  its  Egyptian  name,  Amon7i-noh,  the 
city  of  Amnion,  shews  that  tlic  worship  of  that  god  was 
the  basis  on  which  the  colonists  founded  their  new  state. 
Memnon  too  originally  belonged  to  Mcroe,  which  was  deemed 
the  place  of  liis  birth,  becnuse  it  was  the  earliest  neat  of 
his  worship.  In  Thebes  he  was  revered  as  Phiiinenoj>his, 
Guardian  of  the  city  of  Amnion,  that  is,  an  a  ministi-ring 
god,  one  of  the  class  which  the  Greeks  dcsigimted  by  the 
names  of  Geol  irnpe^pot  and  ofra^oi  So  in  the  Egyptian 
mythology  Thoth  is  the  servant  of  Isjs  and  Osiris,  and 
Anubis  the  guardian  of  Osiris  and  the  attendant  of  Isis. 
And  thus,  as  Ammon  himself  migrated  with  his  priesthood 
from  Ethiopia  to  Egypt,  the  guardian  of  his  sanctuary  ac- 
companied him  in  his  wanderings,  and,  when  his  origin  was 
forgotten,  was  honoured  at  Thebes  as  a  native  hero. 

In   the  ancient  world    religion  and   commerce  were  inti- 


**  111.  114.  opipiix  fit-yirrow  kal  maWiorovt  nal  fiaMpvfJtvraTom.  To  tblB  we 
may  add  the  fact  aientianed  by  Albcnncus  <p.  1M(6)  KaOitrrmr  c'«  xal  -nvKXttl  rove 
m»Wi^Tov*  fi^iaiXia^.  luc  ^^X/"  ''*"'  "'  '^Odfa-roi  KaXwfuvoi  X'Sianv,  w*  ^ijri 
Uiov  if  AIPwMruiotv,  lo  which  Aristotle  also  alluii«,  Pol.  iv.  i.  il  n-uTft  ftiy*6r>^ 
iumifkerro  tu\  opx^'*  £<rwfp  in  AUiiovia  <ftitai  -rivtft.  This  may  be  probably 
coaaidercd  m  a  historical  fact,  and  U  perfectly  conni^teni  with  what  l)tod»ru>  nayv 
(ill.  fi)  about  the  election  of  the  kings  by  the  prieau :  ol  itptit  if  awTw*  to^ 
lifii^Tttvt  wpOKpivauoiV,  kn  it  rmv  KaTaKe^inTUtt  on  av  i  0«Af  vw/ia'Jum  kbt^  Ttwi 
«vinfA<uitr  vtpiiftrpiifttiniv  Xtt^rji,  Totroif  Tfl  TXqOoc  nlp4iTat  paatXia.  Anothtr 
Ethiopian  autoni  reported  by  Diodorua  (iti.  7)  docrvcs  lo  be  mentioned  h«t«; 
^ci  triir^4\  clvai  xai  to  trvtrrtKtvTav  inevvia/V  toW  irratpavt  Toti  ^ocriXcCcri. 
tMt  that  the  honours  which  Memnon'ii  componioni  pay  to  his  tcmib  arc  quite  iq 
ke«ptQf{  with  the  national  character.  Mr  JacobH  haa  not  nodced  (juiniua  Cur- 
tig*  itr.  H.  Aleiander— Memphim  pctiL  Cupido,  hiud  Injuau  quidem,  ceterum  in- 
tanpcaUira,  incc»*CTBt,  non  inicrloni  luodo  .Acjtyptl,  »cd  eiiam  Acthiopiam  inTiwre. 
MemnooTS  Tithoniquc  relehrata  regia  cngnaacendae  vetimtatiH  avidum  trahcbat  pseoe 
cxtn.  Wrmlnns  wlis.  Dcsnctriiui  iv  tw  ir«^l  -r^v  tar'  Alynrrov  (ap.  Allien,  xv. 
pit  WO)  :  X^tTKi  ^r  Til  fii^t  inri  twh  Aiyinrriatu,  '6ri  ol  Ai^'unrex  trrtWoitWoi  •if 
tpaiatf  vkA  Tot  Ti^wvov,  hiti  i^teovaav  t6»  }Ai)t.rava  TeTeXewr^KfCdi,  «•  t»4t«j»  ti» 
Tvwif  Toitv  VTf^awavx  dvifluKor  ixi  Tnv  iintir6<n. 

i>  See  Heertn  Idem  ii.  p.  441  ind  fol). 


15a 


Memnon. 


niately    connected   together.       The   gods    accompanied    their 
worshippers   into  the  foreign   land<i    to  which   they  were  led 
by  the  pursuit  of  gain,  and   their   eiicceasive   stations  were 
marked  by  new  temples,   altars,   and  rites.      *'  The   Indian 
commerce  carried  the  worship  of  Bacchus  from  the  Ganges  ^i 
to   Thrace   and   thence   farther  southward:    so    Serapis   waM^H 
transported    from   Egypt   to  Colchis,  and  thence  to   Sinop^, 
whence   he   returned    to   his  native  honje:    so  the  Phoenician 
Hercules  travelled  to  Gades,  and  the  Astaroth  of  the  same 
people  was  introduced  by  them  into  nil  the  islands  and  coun- 
tries visited  by  their  fleets  and  caravans."      And  as  the  nu- 
merous birthplaces  of  Bacchus,  his  Nysas,   in  Ethiopia  and 
India,  Arabia  and  Thrace,  plainly  indicate  so  many  scats  oC^H 
his   worship,   sd   x\\c   Memnonia    may   be  regarded  as   traoes^^l 
of  the  progress  of  the  Ethiopian   god.      We  find   his    sway 
permanently   established    in    several   cities :    and   it    may    be 
fairly    conjectured    that    it    was  not   confintid    to  the   compa- 
ratively few  spots  in  which  we  happen  to  have  heard  of  it. 

The  chief  diflicultv  that  stands  in  the  way  of  a  his- 
torical interprL'tatioii  uf  the  legend  of  Memiion,  arises  from 
the  great  number  of  sepulchral  monuments  that  laid  clium 
to  his  remains  from  Meroe  to  the  /Esepus.  But  the  hy- 
pothesis now  [iroposed  affords  a  complete  explanation  tif 
this  singular  fact,  which  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
oriental  genius,  and  especially  witli  that  of  Egyptian  anti- 
quity. The  religion  of  Egypt  was  as  gloomy  and  melan- 
choly, as  that  of  the  Greeks  was  cheerful  and  gay.  It  iilled 
life  with  images  of  death,  and  even  dashed  the  pleasures 
of  the  banquet  with  recollections  of  the  grave.  The  gods 
themselves  die  and  are  buried  and  bewailed.  Many  cities 
in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  contested  the  possession  of  the 
remains  of  Osiris ;  and  the  sepulchre  of  Isis  was  shewn  at 
Memphis,  and  at  I'hilre:,  near  the  borders  of  Ethiopia.  Her 
festival  was  celebrated  with  mourning,  like  many  otiiers  in 
tile  East.  And  there  can  be  no  Houbt  that  Amenophis  was 
honoured  with  similar  rites.  We  learn  from  I'hilostratus 
that  the  Etliiopians  mourned  over  Mcmnon's  untimely  death 
(Vit.  Ap.  VI.  i.) ;  and  Oppian  (Cynegct.  ii.  151)  says  the  same 
of  the  Assyrians.  This  agrees  perfectly  with  the  Greek  legem! 
abotit   the  yearly   contests   of    the  birds    at    the   Memnonian 


Memrton. 


barrow.  Hence  it  appears  that  according  to  all  analogy 
Meinnon  must  be  admitted  into  the  ranks  of  the  Egyptian 
and  Kthiopian  gods.  His  graves  are  his  sanctuaries,  and  his 
palaces  are  like  many  in  Egypt,  which  were  mansions  not 
of  the  living  but  of  the  dead.  Foreign  as  such  buildings 
are  to  onr  ii>iages  ami  notions,  thov  were  familiar  to  those 
of  the  Egyptians,  in  whose  eyes  life  had  no  import  but 
that  of  a  transition  into  the  realm  of  death.  Hence  the 
magnificence  of  the  sepulchral  palace  of  Osvmandyaa ;  and 
the  Labyrinth  was  destined  to  a  similar  purpose.  We  meet 
with  instances  of  the  same  usage  in  other  parts  of  the  East. 
The  temple  of  Belus  was  sometimes  called  his  palace,  soine- 
thoes  his  grave.  Semiramis  buried  Ninus  in  her  palace 
(Diodor.  n.  7) ;  and  Persepolis  was  at  once  the  residence  and 
the  buriftlplace  of  the  Persian  kings  ;  such  therefore  we  may 
conclude  was  the  character  of  the  Asiatic  Mcmnonia. 

I  am  conscious  that  this  slight  sketch  has  not  done  full 
justice  to  the  arguments  of  a  writer  who  is  no  less  distin- 
guished by  his  eloquence  than  by  his  learning :  yet  I  hope 
it  will  have  enabled  the  render  to  understand  and  enter  into 
his  opinions.  I  must  now  proceed  to  assign  some  reasons 
which  prevent  me  from  assenting  to  his  hypothesis,  and  lead 
me  to  prefer  a  different  view  of  the  subject.  The  sum  of 
his  reasoning  amounts  to  this  :  the  supposition  that  the  Greek 
legend  of  Memnon  was  founded  on  a  historical  basis  leaves 
the  most  essential  of  its  features,  the  death  of  the  hero,  and 
the  rites  with  which  ho  was  honoured,  wholly  unexplained  ; 
whereas  the  hypothesis  just  stated  accounts  satisfactorily  for 
these  and  all  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case.  I  shall 
first  say  why  I  um  not  satisticd  with  this  explanation,  and 
nhall  then  attempt  to  shew  that  the  one  I  adopt  is  consistent 
with  all   t}ie  e^uditicms  of  the  question. 

AntI  in  the  first  place  I  must  express  my  doubts  as  to  the 
extent  wliicli  Mr  Jacobs  uttnbutes  to  the  worship  of  the 
Ethiupiau  god  or  hero  in  Asia,  as  indicated  by  the  Memnonia. 
Instead  of  presuming  that  these  monuments  once  existed  in 
far  greater  numbers  than  the  fragments  of  ancient  history 
disclose  to  us,  I  am  inclined  to  suspect  that  we  hear  of  more 
than  ever  existed.  I  collect  from  a  passage  in  Mr  J.'s 
eaaay  that  Jablonski   entertained   the  same  opinion :   but   as 


160 


Menmon. 


I  have  not  been  able  to  meet  with  that  author*s  Sytitaj^nata 
de  Memnone,  I  do  not  know  on  what  arj^uments  lie  founded 
it*  To  me  the  Memnonia  reported  to  exist  at  Ecbatana  and 
at  Susa  seem  very  extraordinary,  even  on  Mr  J.V  hypothesis; 
nnd  the  closer  they  are  examined  the  more  suspicious  do  they 
appear.  Aa  to  the  former  of  these  capitals,  what  Hyginus 
attributes  to  Memnun  is  the  same  work  which  Herudotus 
ascribes  to  Deiijces.  From  the  notice  this  historian  takes  of 
the  Memnonian  Susa,  it  Bcems  fair  to  conclude  that  he  had 
never  heard  of  any  connexion  between  Memnon  and  Ecbataua; 
and  it  is  not  very  probable  that  such  a  report,  if  it  liod  existed 
in  his  day,  should  have  escaped  him  and  have  reached  Hyginus. 
On  the  other  hand  when  it  was  once  known  that  Memnon  had 
founded  Susa,  or  aU  least  built  the  palace  there,  it  was  quite  in 
the  spirit  of  Greek  invention  to  extend  the  story  to  the 
Median  metropolis.  I  do  not  therefore  even  think  it  necessary 
to  have  recourse  to  the  Syrian  Ecbatana,  though  this,  which 
lay  near  the  river  Beleus  and  the  IMemnoniuni  mentioned  by 
JiMepbus  and,  as  it  would  Heeni,  alluded  to  by  Oppian,  might 
certainly,  as  Mr  Jacobs  himself  admits,  have  been  confounded 
witli  the  Median".  On  the  other  hand  the  legend  that 
Memnon  dwelt  at  Susa  appears  to  he  confirmed  by  the 
authority  of  Herodotus,  who  repeatedly  adds  the  epithet  Mem- 
nonian to  the  name  of  the  city  or  the  palace.  But  it  is  still 
very  questionable  whether  we  ought  to  look  upon  this  as  the 
record  of  an  ancient  tradition.  I  lay  no  stre.ss  on  the  fact  that 
Susa  was  founded  by  Darius  Hystaspis*',  because  this  .statement, 
though  probably  authentic,  needs  not  to  l>e  taken  so  literally 
as  to  exclude  the  previous  existence  of  a  town  or  a  temple  on 
the  same  site.  But  Diodorus  (l.  4(i)  relates  that  the  Persians 
were  said  to  have  built  or  adorned  the  famous  palaces  in 
Perscpolis,  and  Susa,  and  Media,  with  the  treasures  which  they 
carried  away  from  Egypt,  and  with  the  aid  of  Egyptian  artists. 
I  see  no  reason  for  questioning  this  fact,  except  with  regard 
to  the  treasure;  and  I  conceive  that  this  is  not  only  the  most 


*«  PUn.  N.  n.  V'  19.  Pramtmloriuni  Cunncltini  ei  in  mnnte  oppiduni  eodcm 
nomine  quondun  Erhstaaa  dktuin.  JuxM  Unu,  Jehba:  rivui  Pnxidji  mtc  Itelus. 
It  WM  the  rwidence  of  the  BubylonJAa  Jews,  Joseph.   Vit.  fi. 

■1   Plin.  N.  H.  VI.  27.     In  ^ueiant  veliu  r^»  Peiunun  Sum  i 
Sdo  coodltSt 


!UM  *  Dftrio  ilyaiupis  ^^^ 


Memnon. 


161 


I 


I 


I 


prol>a])1e  explanation  of  the  Egyptian  characU'r,  which,  as 
Mr  Jacobs  infers  from  the  report  of  Dioiiorus,  was  visible  in 
tlie  buildings  at  Susn  and  Perscpolis,  but  that  it  also 
satisfactorily  accounts  for  the  lej^end  which  had  become  pre- 
valent among  the  Greeks  in  the  time  of  Herodotus,  tliat  Susa 
waa  the  abode  of  Memnon.  I  am  therefore  strongly  inclined 
to  strike  both  Bcbatana  and  Susa  out  of  the  list  of  the 
original  Memnon ia. 

This  however  is  but  a  secondary  question.  My  chief 
objection  to  Mr  Jaeobs's  hypothesis  is,  that  it  implies  either 
a  state  of  things  which  is  not  only  attested  by  no  evidence,  but 
at  variance  with  all  that  we  know  of  ancient  history,  or  else 
a  particular  fact  equally  tmattested  and  intrinsically  improbable. 
If  Memnon  was  an  Egyptian  god  whose  worship  passed  from 
his  own  country  into  Asia,  it  was  undoubtedly  spread  by  human 
tneontt:  and  the  question  is.  Who  were  its  carriers.'  It  is  to  be 
regretted  that  Mr  Jacobs  has  not  been  so  explicit  on  this  point 
as  was  necessary  to  secure  the  reader  from  the  danger  of  mis- 
uuderstanding  him.  For  It  is  not  from  a  direct  assertion,  but 
from  rather  vague  allusions  and  comparisons,  that  we  collect 
the  precise  nature  of  his  upiiiiun.  After  mentioning  that  the 
ancient  religions  migrated  with  mankind  from  the  east  toward 
the  west,  and  remarking  the  connexion  between  ancient  com- 
merce and  devotion,  that  "  the  merchant  journeyed  from  one 
sea  to  another  under  the  guidance  and  protection  of  his  gods," 
he  proceeds  to  illustrate  his  meaning,  in  the  passage  above 
quoted,  by  the  examples  of  Bacchus  and  Serapis,  Hercules  and 
Astarte,  which  he  immediately  applies  to  the  worship  of  Ameno* 
phis,  but  without  expressly  saying  that  it  was  propagated  by 
commerce  or  by  any  other  means.  Since  however  he  alludes  to 
commercial  intercourse,  and  to  no  other  channel  of  communica- 
tion, and  at  ilie  outset  cuml>ats  the  opinion  that  Meimion  was  a 
conqueror,  and  the  Meuinuiiiu  trophies  of  his  victories,  we  must 
conclude  that  he  conceives  the  Egyptian  worship  to  have  been 
diffused  over  Asia,  like  that  of  Hercules  and  Venus,  by  a  peace- 
able traffic.  But  which  was  the  people  that  took  the  active 
part  ID  this  traiHc  ?  This  is  the  question  on  wluch  every  thu3g 
M«nis  to  me  to  depend,  and  for  which  nevertheLess  I  can  find 
■o  distinct  answer  in  Mr  J/s  e»say.  Still  there  are  only 
two  suppositions  that  can  be  made  on  this  subj^Hrt :  and  eiu*h 
Vol.  I.  No.  j,  X 


163 


Memnon, 


of  them  raises  a  tlitficulty  in  my  mind  which  appears  to  me 
insurmountable-  The  nation  whose  commerce  this  form  of 
reli^on  foUowe<l  in  its  progress,  was  eitlier  the  Egyptians 
themselves,  or  some  other.  Nothing  certainly  can  be  imagined 
more  likely  than  that  Egyptians  should  have  planted  the  wor- 
ship of  one  of  their  tutelary  gods  in  the  countries  they 
traversed.  But  in  what  period  do  we  hear  of  a  commerce  in 
which  the  Egyptians  were  active  ?  Of  fleets  and  caravans  con- 
ducted by  Egyptian  merchants?  This  is  something  which 
must  lie  proved  betbre  it  can  ever  be  made  the  foundation  of 
a  tenable  hypothesis.  It  implies  a  state  of  things  not  tmly 
attested  by  nt»  evidence,  but  at  variance  with  all  that  we  know 
of  ancient  history,  which  informs  us  that  except  for  some 
temp4Jrary  conquests,  or  in  conse<|uenc«  of  a  forced  migration, 
the  Egyptians  before  the  age  of  the  Ptolemies  never  left  their 
native  land.  On  the  other  liaml  notwithstanding  our  uncer- 
tainty about  the  dates  of  the  Phuenician  colonies  and  of  their 
commercial  expeditions,  their  liigh  antiquity  is  sufficiently 
probable  and  well  attested  to  be  readily  admitted  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  any  hypothesis.  But  we  have  the  strongest  proof 
of  which  any  negative  assertion  is  capable,  that  they  did  not 
spread  the  worship  of  Amenophis  over  Asia,  because  wc  meet 
witli  no  trace  of  that  worship  in  any  of  their  known  settle^ 
ments,  but  with  others  apparently  differing  from  it  both  in 
nature  and  in  name.  If  there  was  ever  room  for  such  a  being 
as  Amenophis  in  the  Phtenician  mythology,  it  seems  to  have 
been  very  early  filled  up  by  another  person  of  kindred  attri- 
butes, by  their  Thammuz  or  Adonis.  Which  of  these  two 
suppositions  expresses  Mr  J/s  meaning,  I  cannot  even  con- 
jecture: but  that  he  must  adopt  one  or  the  other,  and  cannot 
have  had  any  third  people  in  his  view,  as  the  instruments  of 
diffusing  the  worship  of  Amenophis,  seems  certain  :  but  in 
neither  case  can  I  reconcile  his  hypothesis  with  liistory  or 
analogy :  it  implies  a  fact  wholly  unattested,  and  intrinsically 
impnibahle. 

For  these  reasons  I  must  at  least  suspend  my  assent  to  it, 
until  the  difficulties  I  have  stated  shall  have  been  removed. 

The  hypothesis  I  am  about  to  propose  can  scarcely  claim 
the  merit  of  originality;  for  the  steps  which  led  me  to  it  had 
been  already    taken,  all  but  the   last.       Among  others  Butt- 


fiffmi  on. 


1G3 


mann,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Mythologus",  has  brought 
together  a  numlwr  of  facts  and  observations,  wliich  might  have 
been  expected  to  have  led  him  to  the  same  conclusion ;  and 
perhaps  they  would  have  done  so,  if  he  had  not  been  dazzled 
by  the  captivating  form  into  which  Mr  Jacobs  has  wrought 
hife  hypothesis,  so  that  in  another  place*'  he  thinks  it  scarcely 
possible  to  withhold  assent  from  it.  In  the  essay  on  the 
Minyfc  Buttmann''s  object  is  to  render  it  probable  that 
Minyas,  the  ancient  king  of  Orchumenus,  is  a  person  of 
exactly  the  same  mythical  character  with  the  Indian  Menu, 
the  Egyptian  Menes,  tht-  Phrygian  Men  or  Manes,  and 
(he  Cretan  Minos*  with  whom  the  history  of  their  respec- 
tive countries  begins,  and  he  compares  the  Mannus  of  the 
Germans  ('facit.  Germ.  2),  the  son  of  the  god  Tuisco,  who 
was  celebrated  in  the  ancient  songs  of  the  nation.  To  this 
list  I  would  add  the  conquering  hero  Mcmnon.  I  scarcely 
imagine  that  any  reader  will  be  startled  by  the  slight  va- 
riation in  the  form  of  his  name  from  that  of  the  above 
mentioned  persons :  but  should  this  be  the  case,  it  will  be 
fiuflicient  to  remember  that  Mennion  is  only  a  dilatation  of 
Menun,  and  then  to  remark  tliat  in  a  Greek  author  quoted 
by  Pliny  the  old  king  of  Egypt  occurs  under  the  latter 
name*.  Indeed  in  this  respect  my  hypothesis  seems  to  have 
a  considerable  advantage  over  Mr  J.'s.  For  the  real  au- 
dible name  of  the  Egyptian  god  or  hero  whom  lie  seeks  to 
identify  with  Memnon,  was  not  Amenophts  but  Pltamenoph''', 


■*  VoL  It.     L'cbcr  die  Hinyte  dor  oltistcn  Zcit.  p.  332—241. 

••  f.  p.  189. 

*  llure  can  be  no  doubt,  I  should  think,  ftbout the  ptrrwui  m«ant.  N.  H.  vii.Mi. 
Anddidn  in  Aqtjrpto  tiivciiiBAc  (lilcriu)  (juuiidttiii  iioiiilne  Mciilmih  ttad'il  xv.  ttiinbi 
aslc  Phonmeum  anciquiraimum  (iraeciu  rpf^ein. — Aniiclidcs  inif;ht  welt  cnncludc  tlimt 
HstM  vu  the  inventor  of  leiun,  n\nct  hiK  wn  Atbothis  wrote  bouka  on  atiautmy. 
fiyneetU  ■•  101.  'A6a9iv—oh  r^r/wco-nt  ftifiXoi  dfsTo^iKal,  tnTpo^  yap  ijv.  He  alllO 
built  the  (laUoe  U  MemphU.  It  is  prappr  tn  otaaCTVi*  thai  the  &ajne  chararter  and 
•imilar  actions  an  attributed  to  tbc  KCcund  king  of  the  third  dynasty,  p.  104. 
Ximtffios  3»  "AffKXijirto^  -xitpii  ALyvirrtait  in\^6it  ftii  njc  liTput^v,  o5t«»  Kai  t^¥ 
Aa  ^trrmp  Xi6<ii»  ulKoiont'tP  tlJpnTo.  dK\a  (cxI  ypa^tfx  iir»fn\ti9tj.  Af^n  the 
teoond  king  of  the  fourth  dvnanty,  SitphiH,  eniulMln  hin  prcdecoMiri  by  buiEdinK 
«  ppxmid  and  writing  a  hook:  Pliny,  N,  H.  vi:  Act1iiog>ia  rlara  et  poicns.  ellam 
aaqne  ad  Trojana  bella  Mcnmonc  rcfpiantc. 

'^  One  of  the  tnMTiptimtH  liegini  Sk\vi}v    aMtjoatrrtv    iym    n<^>ii>f    Ba\piM% 


164 


Memnoti. 


though  the  first  letter  is  only  the  article:  and  the  corrup- 
tion of  this  word  into  Memnon  is  certainty  much  less  simple 
and  natural  than  the  other.  Hesidc  this  there  is  a  resem- 
blance between  the  character  of  Memnon  and  Bome  of  the 
persons  with  whom  I  compare  him,  sufficiently  close  ut  least  to 
raise  a  presumption  in  favour  of  my  conjecture.  The  Phry- 
gians, as  we  read  in  Pausanias,  viewed  Memnon  as  a  great 
conqueror,  and  as  the  maker  of  the  highway  tlmt  jMSNcd 
through  their  country.  On  the  otlicr  hand  Plutarch  ol>- 
serves,  that  among  the  Phrygians  all  brilliant  and  wontler- 
ful  works  are  called  Manic,  liecausc  Manis,  one  of  their 
ancient  kings,  whom  some  name  Masdcs,  was  a  brave  and 
powerful  man  in  his  day :  and  Plutarch  himself  compares 
this  hero  with  Semiramis  and  Scsostris*  So  too  what  ia 
reported  of  the  first  king  of  Kgypt  agrees  extremely  well 
with  the  general  outline  of  Mcmnon's  history.  I  lay  no 
stress  on  the  coincidence  between  Mcnes  and  Osiris,  though 
it  seems  very  clear  that  tlie  actions  of  the  one  arc  attributed 
to  the  other**.  But  Menes  is  represented  not  merely  as  a 
founder  of  religious  institutions,  and  the  author  of  a  higher 
degree  of  civilization,  but  also  as  a  conqueror,  who  gained 
great    renown    by  an   expedition    which   he    led    into   foreign 


**  De    It.  el  Oh.  24.    fieydXa*  /Aiv   iftPavv-riti  wpd^tit  iv  'Avwploa  T<fiifiiifUO€, 

0Stf;i(iffTa  Ttuv  Ipymv  .Mut-txii  KaXovei,  iid  tA  MdtHv  Ttvd  TtSf  WAni  fiaatXtiUf 
dyaSAv  iv&pa  KaX  cvvvroif  yti>ia9ai  -rup'  uvtoTg,  ov  imoi  KaTdn*  KaXavai,  The 
UlLcr  name  reminds  us  of  the  Persiwi  Ormusd  or  Oromudes,  which  fa  vritlcn  by 
oricnul  icholAre,  Ahu^^  MAxdAc  :  the  la^t  WDti  i%  an  epithet  nijrnlfyinn;  great, 

3>  Plutarch}  Do  Is.  et  Os.  c.  U,  mentions  the  story  of  the  canes  recorded  ftt  Thebei 
Kltrd  yf*lptot  TOO  (iatrikimi  lit  -Fjiwrov  Aiytnrriovt  nit  dirXourov  Kai  dxpHfutTov  ik«l 
X.1T1J1  dwiiWa^e  iittlniv,  c>  III.  he  Mfi  ^ttXivavTtt  i'  '0<r*piv  Atyvw^lom  fihi 
wifBtrt  dvapov  (iiou  Kal  6^piimtovv  awa-Wd^ut,  Kttpiritit  Tf  itl^avra  teal  itAfMmn  Of|i>* 
vov  airraic  Kai  6eu&v  &ttl[at>Ta  •rifiiw  iwrtpov  H  ytfn  vdvav  ^ntpoititfow  iwrV- 
fl»I».  DiodoruA,  1.  45,  reUien  of  Mena«,  Koraiel^m  tois  Xaoit  &toOt  -n  9i(ito9ak  nral 
Bwltn  triTtXtlv,  irpov  H  tuiWwib  irapaTiOtifdai  Tpawt(^at  nal  «X(vaa.  fcal  trrpM- 
^rp  TToXirrfXii  x^ijffSai,  vnl  ri  aittaXnu  Tpv^{n}v  Ka\  *ctXirrt\ij  ^iov  tltnfyt^itaa^ni. 
Whenwccompirc  lhc«!de»ctiptioi«(,»nd  renicmber  \Xu:  irKfpopiDt  a-rpa.Ttitt  of  Mctmk. 
ii  U  diffinuk  Ki  iii>iiro*e  of  Wyttenbach's  criticUin,  who  object*  10  Squire's  ojiinion 
th»t  MeiRs  and  Oiirii  were  one  and  the  wmc  pecaan.  "  Atijui  divenue  lunt  re», 
diversme  traditioucs.  Afoiis  Aef;7i)tio«  primus  a  siniplici  ct  fruKali  victu  ad  Uutinttm 
dclicatiaremijuc  convcrtli,  at  OsiiJB  a  viu  iiiopi  ct  ferina  ad  frupiin  agrique  nilnirim 
ac  DeoTum  cullum  eo*  tiaduxiu"  An  if  luxury  and  fVii|j^Ujr  were  not  rrlatire  tcnna. 
Then  he  adds  a  chronological  argument :  et  rnnmno  hie  Uh  njttv/Hior  eeUbrnlur. 


femnon. 


1G5 


lands**.  It  may  therefore  be  fairly  assumed  that  a  name 
which  a  Greek  would  naturally  form  into  Memnon,  was  long 
before  the  time  of  Homer  celebrated  in  the  west  of  Asia, 
as  that  of  a  hero  who  had  come  from  the  East,  and  had 
achieved  many  ^orious  exploits:  and  this  very  simple  sup- 
position, if  it  may  not  rather  be  termed  a  well  attested 
fact,  appears  to  me  quite  sufficient  to  explain  every  feature 
in  the  Greek  legend  of  Memnon.  This  I  shall  proceed  to 
shew  by  analysing  the  legend  and  successively  examining  its 
elements.  These  are,  the  parentage  of  Memnon,  his  extra- 
ordinary beauty,  his  premature  deaths  his  funeral  honours. 

As  to  the  first  point  1  may  lie  very  l)rief,  liecause  it  raises 
no  <lifKculty,  at  least  none  that  is  peculiar  to  my  hypothesis. 
To  say  that  Memnon  came  out  nf  the  distant  East,  was  efpii- 
valent  to  calling  him  an  Ethiupian,  and  no  ]>arent  could  be  as- 
signed to  him  mure  befitting  his  beauty  and  his  illustrious  deeds 
than  the  god<]ess  of  the  morning.  It  was  not  an  arhitrarv 
fiction,  but  a  mythoIo£^cal  deduction,  as  legitimate  as  that 
which  determined  the  lineage  of  Achilles  and  Mnea».  The 
beauty  of  Memnon  may  at  first  sight  appear  n  necessary  re- 
sult of  his  birth :  since  the  rosyiingercd  goddess  could  bear 
none  but  comely  children.  It  it  however  quite  as  probable 
that  the  beauty  of  the  bcro  was  the  earlier  feature,  and  con- 
tributed to  fix  the  story  of  his  birth.  The  sense  of  beauty, 
which  gradually  developed  itself  among  the  Greeks  in  so  many 
directions,  manifested  itself  in  the  attention  paid  to  the  human 
fonu,  perhaps  before  they  had  begun  to  attempt  even  the  rudest 
imitation  of  it.  It  is  a  characteristic  tradition,  even  if  it 
should  not  be  literally  true,  that  Cypsclus,  the  ancient  king  of 
Arcadia,  instituted  a  contest  for  the  palm  of  female  beauty  on 
the  Alpbeus".     The  antiquity  of  similar  contests  at  Tenedos 

*  SplwU.  p.  103.  (Ddcui.)     Mrra  vixvav  teal  tovv  ^ftiBiam  TptiTtiif  iwfoo-rwiav 

Jtfifvifff  Up  'Hpoiortn  M^fa  mvv/intrtv.—oirro^  iiir4fi6p\ov  enpa-nlttB  ixoiifViiT©  Kttl 
IkJo^m  iKp\9\i.  {rri  H  Iwvoirordtioo  •jpnctrifif.  It  U  Tcmvkable  thu  he  too  coni« 
to  an  untimely  ciid. 

'■  Niciu  ip  Tvlt  'ApKaiutoi^  Ath«n.  xiil.  p.  609-  The  conteit  took  pUct  at  the 
fatiTftl  of  the  Kleusiiiian  Cera.  Another  ^m  menrioncd  In  the  nine  page,  on  the  au> 
thoiit;  of  Theophnstus,  anionR  tlic  Klcons  for  the  other  icx.  Un  cooipaiinK  thk 
pMuge  with  what  \%  raid  nf  the  Kleat)  rontnt  In  )>.  ftR.'i.  F.  we  arc  led  to  auspect  thkt 
iht  objvrt  In  all  these  Donte«t]t  was  to  xelect  the  m<v«i  romcly  permmn  for  thr  service  of 
Ihe  dchjr. 


166 


Memnon. 


and  Le8l;x>8  was  probably  very  great^-  The  Bcholiast  on  II. 
IX.  \ii)  iniogiiied  that  the  poet  alluded  to  that  in  the  latter 
island,  which  was  held  in  the  precinetii  of  the  temple  of  Juno". 
And  I  am  inclined  to  suftpect  that  the  legend  of  tlie  rival 
goddesses  may  have  owed  its  origin  to  this  local  usage.  The 
Homeric  poems  contain  abundant  evidence  that  beauty  and 
vulour  were  attributes  equally  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  perfect 
hero.  Achilles  suqiusses  all  the  other  Greeks  equally  iu  botli^. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  this  from  other 
ca.ses,  in  which  the  bcaiity  ascribed  to  a  mythical  person  was 
probably  connected  with  a  totally  different  train  uf  associations. 
The  beauty  of  Ilyl&s  and  Hyacinthus,  and  perhaps  that  of 
Pelops  and  Endymion^,  belongs  to  a  separate  head,  and  has 
nothing  in  common  with  that  of  Achilles.  But  that  of  Teleus, 
of  Bellerophon,  of  Jason,  and  Theseus*",  and  other  similar 
heroe.s,  may  be  properly  considered  as  an  early  indication  of 
the  national  turn  of  mind.  And  this  h  confirmed  by  the  iro- 
purtancc  which  the  Lac^scmonians,  who  retained  the  old 
Greek  character  with  so  few  refinements,  attached  to  this 
quality'*^.  If  the  Etliiopians  paid  exclusive  regard  to  it  in 
the  election  of  their  kings,  we  read  that  ArchidamuB  was 
fined  by  the  ephors,  for  preferring  a  rich  wife  to  one  who  was 
more  likely  to  bear  princes  worthy  of  Sparta'",  and  we  know 
what  a  difficidty  the  oracle  threw  into  the  way  of  Agcsilaus 
in  moimting  the  throne-  If  tlicrefore  Memnon  was  a  great 
warrior,  it  followed  almost  of  course  tliat  he  was  a  person  of 
tuirpassing  beauty. 

But  the  third  feature  in  the  legend  of  Memnon  seems  to 
be  that  which  Mr  J.  found  most  difficult  to  reconcile  with 
the  hyiwthesis  that  he  was  a  real  conqueror ;  and  as  this  ob- 
jection would  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  supposition  of  his 
having  been  an  imaginary  one,  I  must  endeavour  to  remove 


"  Thcophrwtu!  ap.  Alhen.  xui.  p.  filfl.  ' 

**  wnpii  Atirftloiv  aytov  dyrrai  UtiWotn  yvuntictiv  if  Tta  'r^t"HfiM  •rtfiivu  X«ycf^if> 

M  II.  II.  674.  »  Athcn.  xtll.  p.  M4. 

*  About  ThesoiK.  bcc  Athcn.  xm.  p.  *W1. 

"  llenicliiln  LcmbaB  op.  Athen.  p.  AtKl.  Korrd  njii  'S/wapnfV  0av/ufJ[(Tai  fiaXXa*  • 

**  iiiiXiyoirTas   Sri  ^aviX/r^tattt  arri  fiamXiw  ralv  Jhrafi^tdrait  ydtuv  •wpo* 


MemnoH* 


167 


1l  Tlie  premature  deutli  of  Meranon  inay  I  conceive  be 
aatiflfactorilv  atTOuiitfil  for  hy  two  causes,  which,  though  dis- 
tinct from  e-Qch  othpr,  may  liave  had  an  equal  share  in  the 
formation  of  the  legend.  In  the  first  place  it  must  he  re- 
marked, that  it  is  not  owing  to  a  merely  accidental  association 
of  ideatt  that  all  the  qualities  of  an  accomplished  hero,  the 
highest  fulness  of  strength,  fleetness,  beauty,  and  courage,  meet 
to  adorn  the  character  of  Achilles,  who  is  to  be  cut  off*  in  his 
prime.  This  cannot  be  denied,  even  by  one  who  sliould  con- 
tend that  Homer  was  only  relating  a  fact,  and  that  Achilles 
may  be  considered  as  much  a  historical  person  as  Brasidas. 
For  still  it  will  be  certain  that  it  could  be  only  by  the  choice 
and  design  of  the  poet,  that  the  hero's  untimely  death  is  re- 
presented as  the  price  which  he  has  to  pay  for  his  glory". 
Hence  it  is  clear  that  his  fate  is  nothing  more  than  the  ap- 
propriate epical  expression  for  the  same  feeling  whidi  after- 
wards breaks  out  in  the  plaintive  strains  of  the  lyric  muse, 
the  feeling  of  sadness  produced  by  the  shortness  end  uncer- 
tainty of  life,  by  the  inflexible  destiny  which  contracted  all 
human  enjoyments  within  a  narrow  span^  and  often  embittered 
it  with  sorrow,  often  snatched  away  the  most  precious  gifts 
of  nature  and  fortune,  almost  before  the  possessor  had  time 
to  taste  them.  That  this  motive  entered  into  the  composition 
of  the  legend  of  Memnon,  seems  the  more  probable,  because 
he  is  slain  by  Achilles,  and  because  it  is  by  his  hand  that 
Nestor  is  bereaved  of  the  youthful  Antilochus. 

It  was  not  however  only  the  high  d^ree  of  beauty  and 
valour  attributed  to  Memnon  that  may  have  given  this  turn 
to  the  legend ;  it  might  be  very  naturally  suggested  by  his 
character  as  a  conqueror.  For  he  was  a  conqueror  of  ancient 
times :  his  greatness  had  past  away ;  his  name  was  preserved 
only  by  a  faint  echo  of  his  old  renown ;  a  new  generation  had 
sprung  up  to  occupy  the  scene  of  his  exploits;  what  monu- 
ment of  him  could  be  found  there  but  his  tomb  ?  That  this 
rVaa  a  natural  train  of  thought,  appears  to  me  sufficiently 
Dvcd  by  what  Sallust  says  of  the  African  legend  about 
Hercules,  who  was  believed,  after  leading  a  vast  army  out  of 
the  Last  to  the  conquest  of  the  Western  world,  to  have  died 

*>  lU  XTitt.  0A — 131.  ••*  Kal  iyiiv,  d  i^  ptct  iifioli}  fieifia  rrrvKrat,  Ktieofi',  iwwi 


1GB 


Memnon. 


in  Spain^°.  I  shall  presently  have  occa^oo  to  mention  what 
I  conceive  to  be  another  parallel  instance.  But  without  dwell- 
ing on  this  jKiint,  it  might  be  enough  to  say  that,  as  tlicrc  can 
be  no  doubt  that  from  the  earliest  times  the  plains  of  Asia 
were  covered  with  numberless  liarrows,  raised  by  the  various 
tribes  wlio  had  contended,  for  the  possession  of  the  country, 
if  the  name  of  Memnon  was  celebrated  there,  it  would  have 
been  scarcely  possilily  tliat  it  sliotdd  not  have  been  connected 
with  some  of  these  iiioiuiments  even  before  the  Trojan  war. 
Wherever  a  nanicles«  sepulchre  was  found,  there  was  probably 
a  talc  to  nttcount  for  it:  just  as  in  alt  parts  of  Peloponnesus, 
but  especially  in  Laconin,  the  jieople  shewed  great  barrows 
which  they  called  the  graves  of  the  Phrygians  who  accom- 
panied Pclops  on  his  famous  exp»^lition".  Yet  those  Plirygians 
were  conquerors.  And  must  we  here  have  recourse  to  the 
hypothesis  of  an  Kgyptian  Morship?  It  woidd  surely  not  be 
a  very  extravagant  conjecture,  that  among  those  numerous 
barrows  which,  as  Strabo  informs  us**,  were  in  his  day  shewn 
almost  all  over  Asia,  and  called  by  the  name  of  Semiramis, 
acme  at  least  passed  among  the  natives  for  her  tombs.  This 
however,  I  nnist  acknowledge,  is  an  argument  which  would  drop 
out  of  my  liands,  if  any  one  shoiUd  choose  to  deny  that  Semi- 
ramis  had  any  thing  to  do  with  tlie  Assyrian  dominion,  and 
should  contend  that  she  i»  only  another  reprcK-ntative  of  the 
Egyptian  worship,  which  Mr  J.  &up]M»sc8  to  have  prevailed 
throughout  Asia  until  it  was  compelled  to  give  way  to  the 
Persian  arms*^  The  barrow  on  the  ^sepus  was  apparently 
diKtinguished  by  the  neighbourhood  of  Troy,  and  by   being 


**  Jug.  18— poiit<]u«Tn  In  nispRTiia  Herrnlu,  licnt  Afrl  puunt,  liiteriit,  eierdn* 
tjus  compooiiut  ex  Tariis  )("ii>l*>i*t  ftmisio  duce  ac  p»«iin  niultU,  sibi  qniKqne,  Em- 
ptriuiii  peientibus,  brevi  dilabilur.  Ex  eo  nuniero  .^ledi,  i'trsar,  et  Aniieni,  naribas 
in  Africun  traiuvecti  proxumoH  nmicpo  niari  lociw  occupavcre.  So  (hut  Ilcr«ules  niuat 
hftve  come  ham  Su&a  and  Kcbatana.  I'lLny  N.  H.  v.  H:  Phorusii  quomUm  Penac 
eofiiilcs  fuiwc  ilicuntur  IlrmiliBad  HeHiieridas  tendenti». 

*>  Atben.  p.  fi-2A,  K,  Uoi^  ov  kai  ■rij^  ]|<XftTui'i>i;'ar(>L>  irairruxov,  ^aXMra  f  i»  A«> 

*'  XVI.  p.  737-  Kul  T1711  St/iipdniSotr  X"^'*  '*'*'''  ''"  Bi^vXmvi  ipyi0f,  woKXa  ti  Mai 

&  iif  KoXovat  ^iftipafiiiow,  Kttl  Ttixv  k,  t.  X.. 

**  Note  p.  27.     "The  triumph  uf  tiiu  Persinn  arms  put  an  end  to  the  EgypUanj 
wonliip  b  Asia,  aofl  the  sepulchral  )>alace3  of  Meninnn  were  convened  irna  rMklcnccg| 

of  king*." 


f^mnon* 


169 


I 


in  a  grove  sacred  to  the  Uivcr  Nvmpha".  As 
to  dS€  slorv  of  the  birds,  by  which  Mr  .1.  thinks  his  hvpothcsis 
is  confirmed,  I  can  only  say  that  I  can  discover  no  p;:round  for 
Assuming  that  the  Memnonides  were  the  original  type  after 
which  all  the  other  animals  of  the  same  class,  the  birds  of 
Diomed,  of  Meleager,  of  Achilles",  were  invented,  or  that  any 
of  these  le^nda  were  founded  on  anything  more  than  obser- 
ions  mure  or  less  correct  on  the  habits  of  birds  in  particulai' 
:es  which  were  naturally  connected  with  local  le^nds. 
Any  one  *vho  reads  the  stories  Pliuy  lias  collect«l  in  the  tenth 
book  of  his  history  ubuut  birds  uf  passage,  will  very  easily 
understand  what  ample  matt-rials  the  popular  iuiagiiiutiou 
might  find  in  them". 

It  will  nut  Ik"  irrelevant,  before  we  quit  this  part  of  the 
subject,  to  remark  that,  though  Mr  J.'s  reflexions  on  the  gl(M»iny 
character  of  the  Kgyptiaii  worship,  and  the  contrast  between  it 
and  the  Greek  are  in  general  very  just,  still  there  is  a  very 
important  branch  of  the  Greek  religion  to  which  they  are  not 
applicable,  and  this  is,  the  rites  celebrated  in  honour  of  the 
dead.  These  rites  were  necessarily  of  a  funereal  character, 
and  all  festivals  of  wliich  they  formed  a  part  presented  a  dark 
as  well  as  a  light  side*".  The  original  distinction  between 
the  worship  of  the  gods  and  that  of  the  hen>es  was  never 
effaced,  though  it  was  sometimes  diflicidt  to  ascertain  which 
was  most  properly  due,  as  in  the  cases  of  Hercules,  Achilles, 


**  Quint,  ('alttb.  II.  A8R.  ^\i  tt  Jivfu^iimv  KaWfw\ofiiii'»i' ^»\ti  iKttni  Ka\6M,  3 
iti  fi»Tvwt«'6*   ftampoit  vp\  vtjfi'  ifiakavro    Almimaio  Suyat-pe*.   dAiff  -rewvatofurov 

^^  On  (he  tnntfonnkHon  of  TNomede'R  companiniu  inio  bi^dl^  Smb.  v  i.  p.  'JIU.  On 
the  MeleoKrides,  PIfny  N.  H.  x.  3B.  SimUi  ipoOo  puffiuuii  .■\IelcaffTidc*  in  Ooeotia. — 
MtXotgn  lutrulua  nobilu.  Aelian  H.  A.  iv.  42.  In  PhilciicriKus,  Uctoic.  p.  /-irn,  the 
bird*  perform  the  um«  office  it  the  tempte  of  Achilln  v>  at  the  tomb  of  Mcninont  Ko<r- 
ftoif^av  avTif  ri  dkirttt  rif  t<  six'^u  raf  -rrtpvu,  xal  raiv  «■»'  airrmp  ptufivt. 

**  To  Bclect  one  ipecimen:  c  31.  Pytbonoi  comcn  vmauit  id  Aiis  pkuntibtu 
umpit,  nbi  eongref^tae  (cicooiae)  inter  ^e  cointnurmur&nt,  eaniqut  quae  novisalme 
•dvenil,  iMceraDt.  Such  rongief{atiuii>  would  most  rrc(|uenil]r  lake  place,  or  m  lean 
would  attract  mmt  attention,  on  isoliury  hillorkv  The  Seleuctdes  mcniioned  in  c.  39 
seem  lo  have  owed  their  name  to  Greek  flattery. 

"  See  the  description  of  the  Hradnthla  in  Athcu.  p.  Iffi.  Philoairatos,  Heroie. 
p.  7401  obacrvei,  ra  ft4U   Kopiv^imit  t-ri   TAtXinifyr^ ..  .kuI  inrotn  al  airral  ipiiatv  jvl 

Vol..  I.  No.  4.  Y 


Uiomctle,  and  others'".     Tlioiigh  I  ahould  liesitaie  very  much 
to  deduce  the  whole  of  tlie  Greek  rt'ligiun,  as  some  ancient 


**  Fius.  II-  I0>  1-  ^aia-TDf  if  SunfBkfu  \ryovatv  iMorrn  KaraXafittP  Kp 
oipat  ttc  TJfxai  iwayPifiirraf  cSkovu  fj^Iou  ipav  oMiv  A  4*.  t^v  a^rvw,  d\X'  wv  ' 

9(,ii» AebiUo  received  divine  honuun  at  Olhia  (it  leut  if  Dion.  Chr.  ii.  p.8D, 

it  H*"  >u^  £l4<^«i  u  tu  be  taken  lilcralljr]  and  at  AstypaJaea:  Cic.  Dc  N.  D.  tti.  IK,  A- 
chniem  Astj'pala«enftes  inxulani  uuictis  sinic  colunt;  qui  ki  dcuiem,  et  f>rphmM  et 
Rbau»  dii  Hunt,  ^Iu5«  mairc  natl.  At  Uium  he  seciiii  U)  hare  received  the  honaiirs 
both  of  a  {(od  and  a  hero:  HhilMlr.  Her.  p.  741.  The  piutn^e  is  worth  trvrucribint;, 
becaoM!  it  tlluitmtei  better  pcrhapi  than  any  vther  die  distinction  between  the  two 
ntes,  and  U  in  this  rewpect  equally  valuable,  whatever  opinion  we  may  hold  ai  to  the 
writer's  authority.  He  T«Ute«  thai  in  ancient  tirncn  befare  the  Persian  inraakio  in 
compliance  with  the  injunction  of  the  oiacle  of  Dodonar  tv  T^uiuv  -xXiarrm  titiv  v^ra 
tTti  -rto  'Ax'^^*'  '>«^  vifxirrttv  ra  fiiv  mc  t^cw,  to  &<  wt  i»  f^oiya  Teiv  Ktifiinw,  The 
Thwaaliana  had  every  year  sent  a  ship  to  Troy,  with  black  uila,  having  oa  board  14 
6ttopvi,  and  twn  btilU,  one  white  and  the  other  bUck.  The  iDesaengen  oa  their  arrival 
at  the  loiTib  of  Achillea  UpofMiv  tp^iAfuvfuvois  iTvvtt^iXa%of,  afaxaXoirrft  ^du  'A](iX- 
kia,irre<paiNiiaavT€K  Ai  Trif  Koputpt'tP  -rov  nvXiavoii,  xal  fl^pou^  ev'  airji  Ofiu^turm,  tiw 
^aufiav  tJ»  fi/Xaua  tat  TfAwMTi  taipitt~rvr'  itiaXovii  ci  icitl  Tvf  IlaTpoH^oy  «rl  tiji' 
^iTa^-^tTeftofrev  Si  letl  ivttyiaui^ts  naTtfiati'oti  iwl  -njv  vavv  ^iij,  Kal  ffvooKrat  c-rJ 
TDV  alytaXov-riif  rrtrpovriiv  Taipiop'AxtX\tt-wd\tv,Kavo\i  Tt  ivap^d/ttviti  Koi  irrXdy- 
■)^vu¥  i-w'  ixttlft}  Tfi  UiMTia^  iSviiv  yap  rtjV  fivalav  TaOrtiu  wf  'iea,  vtpi  Uptlpov  a»iir\»ai» 
awdynifTe*  t6  Itf^etoit,  ui*  pij  iv  t^  vitXepla  fiiiay^oTttTo.  He  then  proceeds  to  relate 
thai  these  ritea  having  been  neglected,  and  Thess«]y  tn  consequence  having  been  aT- 
Hirlcd  with  a  diout(hl,  and  an  oracle  bidding  them  -rtnau  Ttlf'A^iAAfa  mt  9«miv.  a  /tiv 
n/v  ^tw  fitvpt%oif  dtpfiXov  T«up  Cfte/iivaiv,  K^nyouptvtn  Tat/Tj:  TO  vs  Pf'^iVj  ifiiyi^ov  ii 
»«  Ti0i.f«T<.  Compare  Hemic,  p.  7**7,  and  Ihic dcscriplioru  of  Pao)*nia*,  x.4. 1U,  iii. 
ly.  3;  I'liitarch  1^.  Rom.  34.  Xenophanea  ia  said  to  have  been  consulted  by  rhe 
people  of  Klea  whether  they  ought  to  »acrific«  to  Leucothc*  and  to  bewail  her:  the 
philoaopher  »dvi«d  ihem  *i  pi-  t>e,w  ii-wvXaplidvotnrt  /in  ^fivv*iv.  ti  i^'  iwUpmiroy  p^ 
fv*.!-.  Ati»tm.  Rhei.  it.  23.  Plutarch  (De  Is.  et  0».  c.  70)  placw  the  aceoc  of  the 
•lory  ioKgypt,and  givetihespeech  of  X.  a  difierenltum;  (i  (ffoi^  vopilovatpn  dfin^Z^t 
•1  a  6pi}i'avat  Btoi-t  p}',  n.^o'^.i,., — The  ongin  of  the  coufiuion  above  exemplified  be- 
tween divine  and  heroic  h«i>our»  may  in  general  be  accounted  for  by  the  well  known 
facl,  that  in  nmiibcrlcM  instances  a  god  wak  transformed  by  a  legend,  which  laid  hold 
nf  one  of  hi*  epiihew  a«  ihc  name  of  a  distinct  pCTMm.  into  a  mofiaJ  hero.  (Sec 
Jlluellcr  Prolegomena  t.  e.  w.  Jtl.  p.  271.  foil.).  MTieiher  a  hero  (befote  the  -Mace- 
donian period)  wax  ever  really  sublimated  by  the  oieie  enthusiasm  of  his  adoren  into 
a  god,  is  very  doubtful :  »o  that  a  great  part  of  totta's  nrgumentatkin  becomes  a  mere 
sciomachy.  It  mast  however  be  admitted,  that  we  find  the  belief  in  the  general 
poMibiliiy  of  such  an  apotheosis  prevailing  very  early  among  the  (irecks.  It  was  per- 
haps partly  founded  on  the  language  of  the  Odyssey  (XI. ftOl  and  iv.  JHJl),  which  how- 
ever admitn  of  a  different  consinictioo,  and  partly  on  the  facl  that  in  different  pUce* 
(and  somelimct.  it  wonid  ^eeni  in  the  same  place)  both  kinds  of  riles  were  actually 
performed  in  honour  of  the  eame  perMin.  Pindar  Nem.  x.  II.  »ays:  Aiopni<u  o"  ip- 
fipuTof  ^av9d  troTt  VXauKm-w is  iVtjt.*  Vt6v  (Compare  the  quotation  from  Potemo  in  the 
Schd.)  This  wan  after  the  esaiuple  of  Menelaus.  Ht-aiod  {Pauian.  i.  43.  1),  atnoog 
his  other  innovations,  rcporied  'Itpiyiftiav  .lut  d-roVavtiv,  yui^pn  f.i  'ApripiAut  *E»a- 
Ti}v  tluai.  Ii^ipedocles  indeed  speaks  of  a  change  from  the  human  to  the  divine  na- 
ture as  the  ortllaaTT  cHect  of  crnain  religious  observanceit.     But  thia  wm  mHiifcstly  a 


Memnon. 


171 


and  modern  writers  have  dune,  from  this  source,  still  I  as  little 
see  the  necessity  of  attributing  ait  oriental  origin  to  such  rites, 
when  we  meet  with  tliem  auioug  the  Greeks.  Homer's  de- 
scription of  the  obsequies  of  Patroclus,  though  the  poet  strives 
to  soften  the  ferocity  of  the  act,  hy  leading  us  to  view  it  as 
a  measure  of  the  love  of  the  hero  for  his  di'ccused  friend, 
when  combined  with  other  ancient  legends,  seems  to  imply 
lliat  the  Scythian  practice  described  by  Herodotus,  of  sa- 
crificing human  victims  together  witli  4)ther  animals  at  the 
tombs  o{  their  dead  kings,  was  not  unknown  to  the  Greeks 
of  the  heroic  age"  ?  The  inference  I  draw  from  this  remark  is, 
that,  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  mournful  rites  had  once 
Iwen  performed  at  the  grave  of  Memnon  on  the  /Ksepus, 
Mr  J.\s  hypothesis  would  gain  nothing  by  the  admission. 

1  must  here  digress  for  a  moment  to  meet  iui  objection 
which  may  possibly  occur  to  some  readers,  who  have  been 
led  to  consider  it  as  an  unquestionable  truth,  that  hero-worship 
was  unknown  to  Homer,  and  may  therefore  have  been  startled 
by  the  foregoing  observation.  Mr  Mitford  says  (Chap.  ii. 
Sect.  1.)  "Nor  is  there  foimd  in  Homer  any  mention  of 
hero-worship,  or  divine  honours  p«i<l  to  men  deceaned, 
which  became  afterward  so  common."  Tliia  is  an  unfor- 
tunate mode  of  expression,  sine*  it  must  in  general  have  the 
effect  of  preventing  the  readier  from  HU&i>ecting  the  real  state 


pfaQowplltcat  or  mjTBlic  doctrine  wholly  iinknown  to  the  anrioni  (treekA,  though  Pro- 
&«Mr  ^len  (Pindar  t'cinim.  p.  )ifp3)  seems  to  view  it  in  »  difFeicni  lighL  "  Nt  Eoi- 
pedoclu  quidftn  philoiuiphus  dens  ex  his  aniniahu*  tieri  dicenv  pUne  iiianin  Hiuit." 
Vw  in  the  very  pouafie  he  refen  to,  (he  di&ttnetUm  betw«n  the  doctrine  of  Knip.  and 
the  old  (ireck  theology  appcKrs  very  clearly,  when  we  consider  how  Pindur  cxpressca 
the  »«jne  thing.  Emp.  (Stnrt.  v.  407 — HI  My* :  <iir  ^i  ri\»x  ^drrrn  t<  Ka\  I'^ifoiroXoi 
Kiti  iifTpoi,  Kal  Wftoffiai  avVpMiraKriv  rrtyfiaviotaiviXoirrai.'^v^nt  ivrnfiXairroufft  Vtol 
•ntt^at  tftijiurroi.  Pindar  merely  aayii:  OI«i  £i  ^tfiat^ova  tro^yvii  ■^aXaittv  wtVPtov 
^£rTBi.  «'v  Tim  ihnp^Eii  aKiop  miVcdo  ivn-rtm  irti  dvitiol  ijrir](a\  ita'Xu'.  in  Tav  fiact- 
Ai?»T  ayavoi.  Kal  a0f9<t  upaiiryol.  vo<pia  Tt  fityiarot  av&pex  Bufwi^r'*  h  <ii  nip  Xut-rdi* 
Xpovot  4pw«  ayvui  irpAv  anQptirun/  KoXtiifrai  Thren.  4.  Indeed  it  can  scarcely  be 
imagined  that  Hmpedoclen  meant  to  expreu  any  commonly  received  doctrine,  nince  he 
spoke  of  himxelfaa  a  f(od  in  hb  life-time:  iy»i  i'  i/ttv  fto\  li/iitpoTtn  ovk  rn  Ortfrir 
H''^*vttat  fii-rd  TUfft  Tfrittivov,  titrwtp  ioiKt.  V.  307.  Aristotle,  or  Mtttt  CDC  for  hini, 
uya  in  his  ipohigy  (Aihen.  p.  tHi'J)  oi  yip  dv  -wftrt  'K^ficiu  9vttif  «ic  dHavd-rtp  w^p- 
oipov/ivKo*  m  0vtJTw  ^r^fict  h(tT«a'Ki£aJ|<ii',  inl  A9»»ttrC^*a>  -ntv  0if«iir/JtitiXu/ui>oc  ittt- 

^**  f^aintun  11  r.  latO  dcMrlhc!*  a  ■imllar  ukcriKce  at  the  funcnJ  of  Achillei,  which  he 
biy  took  (Vuai  AKtinus. 


^7^2 


Memnon- 


of  the  cast-.  It  ih  as  if  one  should  say:  Saint-worship, 
or  divine  honours  jiaid  to  men  deceasefl,  is  a  practice  of 
which  we  find  no  mention  in  the  writings  of  the  A|x>iiCle:i. 
A  Greek  theolo}3;iau  would  not  only  have  denied  that  hero- 
worship  was  the  same  thing  with  divine  honours  paid  to 
men  deceased «  but  would  have  been  able  to  point  out  a 
brood  visible  distinction  between  the  honours  paid  to  heroes 
and  those  paid  to  the  gods,  which  must  have  prevented  even 
the  vulgar  from  confounding  them.  Hero-worship  consisted 
in  the  repetition  of  L-ertain  funeral  ceremonies,  and  may  be 
saiil  to  have  escisted  as  souu  as  such  repetitions  began  to  be 
practised.  At  what  period  this  practice  arose  ia  certainly  a 
disputable  question.  Homer  does  not  expressly  mention  it ; 
nor  does  tlie  word  hem  with  him  signify  a  person  who  was 
the  object  of  it.  But  since  his  poemH  exhibit  the  feelings 
and  opinions  on  which  the  ])ractice  was  grounded  in  full  force, 
there  is  strong  rei»son»  inde^jendent  of  those  whicJi  might  l>e  ^^ 
deduced  from  the  old  Italian  religion,  to  believe  that  it  existet^^H 
in  the  ugt*  they  refer  to,  though  it  undoubtedly  underwent  ^^ 
many  UKxlificatious  botli  as  tu  its  form  and  its  objects,  before 
it  became  the  hero-worship  which  we  find  prevailing  in  the 
historical  period. 

But  tu  return  to  the  subject.  I  find  all  the  leading  fea- 
tures in  the  Greek  legend  of  Memnon  intimately  connected 
tt»gether,  and  all  springing  naturally  out  of  a  single  cause, 
the  tradition  of  the  presence  of  a  great  eastern  warrior  and 
vonqueior  in  the  west  of  Asia.  If  I  should  have  succeeded 
in  establifiliing  this  jxiint,  my  inquiry  would  be  here  pn»pcrly 
at  an  end.  For  tl^is  conclusion  cannot  be  at  nl!  affectetl  by 
the  aspect  which  the  legend  presents  among  a  difterent  people, 
and  least  of  all  by  the  allusions  marie  by  ancient  writers  to  the 
honnurs  which  Memnon  received  in  Syria.  In  llie  first  place 
considering  the  proximity  of  Kgypt  and  Syria,  and  the  early 
and  frequent  interiourse  between  the  two  countries,  we  might 
admit  the  prnhahility  of  the  supposition  that  the  Egyptian 
Memnon  was  really  wctrshipped  in  the  places  of  which  Jose- 
phus  and  Simonides  s{}()ke,  and  to  which  Oppian  allud 
without  being  led  tu  any  further  conclusion  about  the  Mem- 
nonium  on  the  ^sepus.  But  on  the  other  hand  as  we  do 
not  know  what    was  the   Syrian  name  of  the   person  whoso 


temnon. 


monument  and  worship  the  Greeks  found  there,  we  uiay  with 
equal  probability  suppose  that  they  applied  the  naine  of  Mcm- 
noii,  with  wliich  they  were  familiar,  to  s<iiiie  object  of  Syrian 
devotion,  which  was  foreipi  to  theui,  but  which  suggested  the 
comparison  by  its  history,  attributes,  or  riles.  And  more  par- 
ticularly I  conceive  that  the  Kgyp''^"  Maiicros,  who  presents 
many  j}oiats  of  resemblance,  on  the  one  side  to  Meninon,  and 
on  the  other  to  the  :5yriau  Adonis,  might  have  served  as  the 
middle  term  in  such  a  compiirisoii^.  At  all  events  these  in- 
■tanc«8  cannot  suffice  to  establli^h  that  gigantic  system  of 
Meiimoniuu  worship,  by  wltich  Mr  J/s  imagination  connects 
Ilium   with   Susa  and  Kcbatana. 

As  it  was  the  rescn)l)lance  already  pointed  out  by  others 
between  the  names  and  cliaractcrs  of  I^Ieiiu,  Menes,  Minos, 
&c.  that  Iwl  me  to  tlie  view  here  taken  of  the  Cireek  Aleninon, 
so  it  may  {>erhap8  receive  some  additional  recommendation 
from  a  comparison  between  the  latter  an<l  one  of  the  niost 
celebrated  of  the  former  parsonages,  the  ("retan  lawgiver. 
As  such  Minos  certainly  reminds  «s  much  more  of  the  In- 
dian and  Egyptian  sages.  Indeed  his  cnnnexion  with  the 
latter  appears  much  closer  than  it  really  was,  in  the  legends 
of  the  Egyptian  priesthood  or  their  Greek  admirers.  For 
like  the  Kgyptiaii  Mcmnon  he  is  made  to  build  a  labynuth, 
which  has  now  vanibbed  again  into  air'':  and  on  the  other 
hand  Sesostris,  not  content  with  conquering  all  Asia,  sub- 
dues the  greater  part  of  the  Cyclades,  like  Minos,  and  con- 
cludes his  expedition  in  the  Minocm  period  of  nine  years". 
But  Minos  also  resembles  Mcmnon  in  two  main  points,  which 

not  like  the  former  of  late  invention :  in  the  beauty  of 


**  Me  WHH  the  only  win  of  old  Meneii  (Herod,  ii.  79),  m,  accmdlng  to  Jablaniiki, 
(>pa«c.  t.  p.  Ijltt  his  name  imports,  lie  wk*  cut  otT  likr  liis  father  by  aii  untimely 
death:  iJiuu^fh  Ilermlotuii  dnc-s  nut  My  that  he  was  etwullowed  by  a  hippo))otamu!«. 
In  Heaychiiu,  y\aifip<tit,  JabloruJu  proposn  to  read  (^eoKoyiirai,  Bui  aini-c  Keiiycb. 
adda,  kaI  Ota  touti*  irdtfivava  tmifia  ytiic'trOai,  and  Pollux  t»Jf,  iv.  54,  Ai7(i-irT£it(T 
nif  i>  MiiM^Mav  ytn^yinv  *iipfn\^,  Mouffav  ^a^tr*^*,  \tTvipiri\%  ii  ^pu'^w.  Hod  again 
(.  38  Xivo^  nai  X(Tt)c^irtr«  9na-rai>ita»  M»la\  kmI  y««i^y<air,  I  am  led  to  conjecture 
yc vfiyit vol .  At  all  event*  M'ytlcnbach  slwuM  huve  coRftiilered  ihii,  before  he  joined 
rn  the  outcry  ajtainiit  the  luxury  intrpdiiced  b^  MenrM. 

*■  Hocck  Kreta  t.  p,  )ta  has  shewn  very  utiafaciorily  that  the  Oeum  Ubyrinth  is 
•  late  fabricaUon. 

"  Diodor.  I.  W.  -nin  \»»»iji* '  Aufa*'  iiV<t<r<iv  ti^ffftontf  iwait}tarii  Aiit  twf  K«*Art. 


17+ 


Memnou. 


his  person,  and  in  his  violent  death,  which  snatches  hini  awav 
at  the  height  of  his  power  and  glory-  As  to  the  beauty  of 
Minos,  I  nee<l  only  mention  his  adventure  with  the  traitress 
Scylla'".  But  what  renders  this  legend  remarkable  is,  that 
it  owurs  again  in  a  different  scene,  and  with  different  per- 
sons. In  the  expedition  of  Amphitryon  against  the  Taphians, 
Coinjetho  is  seduced,  like  Scylla,  to  cut  off  the  fated  golden 
hair  from  the  head  of  her  father  Pterelaus*'.  According  to 
Apollndorus  the  seducer  on  this  occasion  was  Amphitryon 
himself:  but  according  to  another  version  it  was  his  ally 
Cephalus".  And  Cephalus  is  beloved  by  Aurora,  as  his 
wife  Procris  must  have  been  by  Minos,  since  he  gave  her 
the  hound  which  was  alone  capable  of  overtaking  the  Cad- 
mean  fox'*.  These  coincidences  are  singular,  though  they 
may  possibly  be  accidental.  The  death  of  Minos  in  Sicily 
seems  to  l>e  a  legend  of  similar  import  with  that  of  the  death 
of  Hercules  in  Spain,  though  perhaps  it  admits  of  a  more 
precise  interpretation,  into  which  however  it  would  be  un- 
seasonable to  enter  here. 

It  now  only  remains  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  origin 
of  the  tradition  on  which,  according  to  the  hypothesis  here 
proposed,  tbe  legend  nf  Memnon  was  founded.  Biittmann 
has  endeavoured  to  shew  that  the  names  Menu,  Menes,  Minos, 
&c.  originally  signified  nothing  more  than  our  word  matt, 
and  tliat  these  mythical  |iersons  were  at  first  only  representa- 
tives  of  their  several  nations,  or  of  mankind  in  general,  who 
afterwards  became  kings  and  lawgivers^'.  To  this  view  of 
the  subject  I  have  no  objection,  and  would  only  observe  that 
it  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  early  existence  of  a  tra- 
dition, that  one  of  these  kings  was  a  mighty  conqueror  who 
came  out  of  the  East.  Hv  what  means  such  a  tradition  was 
connected  with  the  name  of  Alenmon,  it  is  scarcely  possible 
to  ascertain,  and  is  therefore  of  very   little  use   to  inquire. 


■*  Hence  NtnmoK  xxv.  \fl&,  BurrouiitiB  Minoi  with  ■  host  of  Cupids,  and  addm, 

OtiifMf,  'AWu  WoBmi  Ktt'i  ffHtiTt. 

"  Apollo*).  11.  i.  7,  The  h«r  of  I'tcreUux  U  of  koUI,  Uiai  of  Nious  purple  (Psu< 
flan.  i.  m.  4).  It  n  tlic  name  variation  which  occurs  alwut  the  (t^ldm  Herce:  «n 
MueHer  f>rchom.  p.  17^ 

»  Tietx.  wl  I.yc.  ilW.  «  A|to1l««1.  M.  4.  7- 

"  MyiholoKiiK  M.  p.  2.1&. 


^femnnn. 


175 


except  for  the  purpose  i>f  shewing  how  such  a  connexion 
might  have  arisen.  Tliere  are  three  ways  in  which  this  may 
be  conceived  to  have  happened.  One,  wliich  would  perhajK 
be  the  simplest  explanation  of  the  fact,  is  a  migration  hy 
which  the  people  to  which  the  legend  belonged  had  exchanged 
it!,  earlier  seats  fiir  a  new  country  in  the  West.  In  this  case 
the  hero  who  represented  it  would  assume  the  character  of 
a  conqueror,  who  had  led  a  victorious  army  out  of  the  East. 
And  there  can  l>e  no  doubt  that  such  migrations  very  often 
changed  the  face  of  western  Asia,  as  we  are  led  to  believe  in 
particular  with  regard  to  the  Phrygians,  from  the  fact  men- 
tioned by  Herodotus,  that  they  were  related  to  the  Arme- 
nians; for  though  he  expresses  this  by  saying  that  the  Ar- 
menians were  a  colony  of  the  Phrygians'",  historical  analogy 
renders  it  much  more  probal)le  that  the  latter  race  originally 
sprang  from  Armenia.  It  would  however  he  also  possible, 
that  the  exploits  of  a  foreign  conqueror,  who  had  passed 
through  the  land  in  ancient  times,  should  have  been  transferreil 
to  a  native  hero.  And  thus  the  legend  of  Mcmnon  may 
appear  to  attest  the  expedition  of  Osymandyoa  or  Sesostris. 
But  this  explanation  can  only  be  adopted  hy  those  who  are 
satisfied  as  to  the  reality  of  the  enterprises  attributetl  to 
these  conquerors,  which  of  late  has  begun  to  be  vehemently 
questioned.  Indeed  it  appears  that  even  in  the  last  century 
suspicions  had  arisen  among  the  learned  on  the  subject. 
Harsham,  in  the  spirit  of  criticism  which  prevailed  in  his 
^e,  distinguishes  between  the  expeditions  of  Sesostris  and 
iQgjppandyas,  by  what  appears  to  him  a  decisive  mark.  He 
OT«erves  (Canon,  p.  -Wi)  that  the  IWtrians  are  not  num- 
bered among  the  nations  conquered  by  Sesostris,  whereas 
they  formed  a  ]Mirt  of  the  empire  of  Haineses,  as  described 
in  the  monument  shewn  to  Germanicus,  or  at  least  by  the 
prietits  who  interpreted  it,  and  having  afterwards  rebelled 
were  reduced  to  Kubmission  by  the  victorious  arms  of  Osy- 
uiandyas,  who  cm  this  occasion  made  a  progress  through  the 
extensive  dominions  acquired  by  Sesostris.  Perizonius  (/Kgypt. 
Orig.  p.  SOl)  is  so  far  from  admitting  the  force  of  this  argu- 

**  Tif.73.  8ce  Hoeck'f  Kreta  i.  p.  ISA.  He  prodnceft  nevend  strong  arKumenu 
drain)  partly  from  history  and  pftrtly  ftfuvn  ^^Kraphy  for  hU  opinion  that  the  Amie- 
nfasM  were  the  «n<x«toni  of  the  Phrjfftiaiw 


1 76  ^^^^  Afew  n  itu . 

nicnt,  that  «tn  tlif  contrar)  lit*  believes  tht'  cimquests  of  Sesos- 
tris  or  Rmneses  (whom  he  considers  as  the  same  person)  to 
have  been  gi^atly  exaggerated  both  in  Diodonis  and  Tacitus: 
and  he  suspects  (p.  .S06)  that  Sesostri^  was  do  other  than 
Osymandyas.  He  is  however  willing  to  receive  ids  e\pedi-j 
tion  as  a  historical  fact,  provided  it  be  confined  within  rca- 
Ronablc  limits,  and  considered  merely  as  a  transient  inroad 
into  the  heart  of  Asia,  not  as  the  beginning  of  a  long  period 
during  which  n  great  part  of  Asia  was  subject  to  the  kings 
of  Egypt :  a  state  of  things  as  to  which  Lipsius  had  already 
expressed  his  incredulity*".  Freret  observes  *' that  it  is  im- 
possible to  donbt  that  Sesostris  conquered  a  part  of  Asia 
Minor,  and  even  carried  his  amis  into  Thrace.  In  all  these 
countries  he  left  monuments  of  his  conquests :  Herodotus 
assures  us  that  he  saw  two  of  these  monuments  in  Ionia; 
and  he  speaks  of  those  in  Thrace  as  one  who  wan  certain 
of  their  existence  (ii.  103),  The  same  historian  informs  us, 
that  Sesostris  left  a  bmly  of  troops  in  Colchis,  to  secure  this 
frontier  of  his  new  empire*^^".  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt 
that  he  posted  another  with  the  same  motive  in  Asia  Minor".** 
The  pn>gres8  of  critical  caution  now  renders  it  necessary 
to  modify  Freret'8  proposition,  and  will  only  permit  us  to 
say,  that  it  is  inifwssible  to  demonstrate  that  the  expedition 
of  Sesostris  never  took  place.  The  authority  on  which  it 
rests  appears  to  a  modern  critic  far  from  conclusive.  He 
observes  "  that  no  really  historical  traces  have  yet  been  found 
of  the  expedition  of  Sesostris.  For  it  is  to  be  bojK'd  that 
those  strange  monuments  of  it  which  the  ancients  saw  in 
Palestine  and  Scylliia,  though  their  existence  is  satisfactorily 
proved  by  the  testimony  of  Herodotus,  will  not  be  pronounced 
such,  until  some  of  them  shall  liave  been  brought  under  oiur 
inspection,  so  that  modem  as  well  as  ancient  criticism  may 
attempt  to  decide,  whether  they  are  memorials  which  really 
demonstrate  the  fact,  or  whether  the  observers  of  those  days 


*^  Ad  Tacit.  AnntU.  11.  GO,  f)c  hoc  unui  potectU  Aegfptioium  nihil  lq{i,  nee 
fkcUe  aedam.  He  wan  pc^llu|>^  equally  ignorant  of  the  vase  exient  of  their  aatieot 
eoaaaacc. 

**  Tbii  U  not  a  correct  »t«tement  of  what  Henxlotua  saya.  He  aaaigna  no  nich 
motive  to  Sctoatris,  and  docii  not  even  make  up  bis  mind  about  the  rauae  which  Iti 
the  I'Iftjptiani  to  >eUlc  there;  sec  11.  103. 

*'  Memnirn  Ac  I'Acadanie  den  Imcrip.  Vol.  xi  vit.  p.  131. 


Memnon. 


\n 


}ted  a»  such  without 


»icion  «n  interpretation  given  to 
"certain  hiproglyphics  by  an  ancient  legend,  or  even  inscrip- 
tions by  which  a  later  generation  attested  its  belief  in  a 
It^'ndary  fact  **."  It  must  be  allowed  that  these  doubts  are 
not  arbitrary  and  groundless  suspicions.  The  arguments  ad- 
duced by  Herodotus  in  favour  of  his  conjecture  about  the 
Colchians  excite  our  curiosity  with  respect  to  the  particulars 
which  he  has  passed  over^''\  but  cannot  convince  us  that  he 
did  not  misconstrue  them ;  more  especially  as  here  we  do 
not  even  hear  of  any  such  monuments  as  were  said  to  have 
marked  the  bounds  of  the  conqueror's  march  in  Thrace "'. 
As  to  those  which  the  historian  himself  saw  in  Palestine  and 
in  Ionia,  beside  the  general  objections  thrown  out  by  Butt- 
uiann,  they  seem  liablt?  to  doubt  on  some  more  special  grounds. 
The  relations  between  Egypt  and  Syria,  which  arose  in  an 
early  historical  period,  render  it  impossible  to  draw  any  safe 
inference  from  Egyptian  monuments  in  the  latter  country,  as 
to  events  assigned  to  the  mythical  ages.  And  a  similar  ob- 
jection is  applicable  to  the  authority  of  those  sculptures  seen 
bv  Herodotus  in  Ionia,  of  which  he  pronounces,  with  a  con- 
fidence which  we  cannot  share  without  knowing  something 
more  of  his  reasons,  that  they  were  monuments,  not  of  Mem- 
non, but  of  Sesostris.  We  learn  from  Xenophon,  that  Cyrus 
planted  some  colonies  of  Egyptians  in  Asia  Minor.  And 
though  this  statement  is  suspicious  from  the  place  in  which 
it  appears,  it  is  in  substance  at  least  confirmed  by  a  more 
historical  testimony".  Whether  these  Egyptians  were,  as 
Xenophon  represents  them,  auxiliaries  of  Croesus,  or  on  the 
contrary  of  Cyrus  himself,   which    woidd  be  quite  consistent 


**  Buimuon  MytholoRus  i.  IMt. 

**  How  drurkble  would  It  be  (o  know  the  precUe  jfioundK  of  ihc  remark  nak  ij 
{tni  triva  nai  tj  y\w<rva  ifitfitfiit  itrrtv  aWii\.ifivL,  U)d  whether  with  fexpcct  to  tbe 
l»tur  point  they  were  more  ooKent,  thui  from  the  specimen  given  they  acciq  to  have 
been  M  to  the  fonner  ! 

**  It  in  not  clear  wfaether  wc  mupit  add,  nmi  in  Scj/thia^  u  Buttmaim  appean  to  do 
in  the  punage  quoted  above.  Unt  it  5ceni!i  belter  in  ii.  1(0  to  refer  rowroi/t  and 
To^iDvtoUie  Thraeiana  only,  since  it  is  probable  that  Herodotus  waa  speaking  with 
tefercoce  to  Greece. 

**  CyropBd.  vii.  1.  4fi.  The  Egyptiana  receive  wvcral  cities  fWnn  Cyni»,  -ra^  pilir 
drw  04  rri  K<tl  pit/  Vo\fl«  AlyviTTiw  KaXavirrat,  Adpiavav  ii  koJ  KiiXXrivt;^)/  wofio 
fLC/tv  'rXftfiov  PflXdffrt-^*,  at  ^i  «ai  wSv  oi  a*'  iktlviti/  #x»"'«*-  Th'"  Egyptian  La> 
nata  ia  again  mentioned  in  HelL  iii.  I.  ?• 

Vol..  II.  No.  4.  Z 


17» 


Memiion. 


with  the  relation  in  which,  according  to  llerodotue,  the  Per- 
sian con(|ucror  stood  to  Kgypt*^,  and  even  with  the  maia 
fact  related  by  Xenophon  himself,  in  either  case,  if  the  fact 
of  the  Egyptian  settlements  be  admitted,  they  seem  tn  afford 
an  easy  explanation  of  the  monuments  seen  by  Herodotus  in 
Ionia.  If  on  any  of  their  marches  the  Egyptian  troops  found 
themselves  at  li'isiire  in  a  station  near  a  rock,  wliich  struck  ' 
them  hv  its  remarkable  appearance,  the  thought  of  carA-ing"^ 
on  it  the  image  of  one  of  their  ancient  heroes,  who  had  per- 
haps passed  by  that  very  road,  and  had  unquestionably  con- 
quered the  country,  would  not  be  very  unlikely  to  occur  to 
them. 

It  iff  to  be  regretted  that  Mr  Jacobs  has  not  thought! 
it  necessary,  in  discuissing  the  legend  of  Mcmnon,  to  state' 
more  explicitly  his  opinion  on  this  disputed  question.  He 
assumes  the  existence  of  the  Colchian  colony,  but  he  seems 
to  consider  it  as  a  conmiercial,  not  a  military  one,  and  leaves 
us  in  doubt  whether  he  acknowledges  Sesostris  as  a  historical 
person,  or  regards  him  as  no  less  fabulous  than  the  equallj 
celchratcd  Osymandyas,  whose  wars  he  treats  with  as  little 
respect  as  his  library.  But  the  argument  on  which  he  ap- 
pears to  ground  his  belief  in  this  Colchian  colony,  whatever 
was  its  origin,  is  too  remarkable  to  bo  passed  over  in  silence. 
**  Serapis  was  carried  by  Egyptians  to  Colchis,  whence  he 
migrated  to  Sinope,  and  thence  hack  to  his  original  country.*** 
This  manner  of  alluding  to  the  wellknown  ajTair  of  Serapis 
strongly  excited  my  curiosity  as  to  the  reasons  which  had 
led  the  author  to  sueli  a  conclusion.  But  the  reference  which 
accompanies  it  is  merely  this:  Fontenu  Memoir,  de  fJcad. 
des  inHcript.  T.  \.  Galliot.  Dissert,  aur  te  dieu  SerttpU.  Am- 
sterd.  iTfiO.  The  latter  work  I  have  not  yet  met  with;  and 
indeed  my  curiosity  was  so  fully  satisfied  by  the  perusal  of  the 
former,  that  perhaps  I  have  not  done  all  that  I  might  to  gain 
a  sight  of  it.  The  essay  of  the  Abb^  de  Fontenvi  is  a  disser- 
tation on  a  medal  of  the  younger  Gordian,  struck  at  Sinop^, 
and  on  the  history  of  that  city.  It  contains  some  observations 
on  the  medal,  which  arc  not  uninteresting,  beside  a  mixture  of 

•"  It  »ccui»torciuUfrom  Ilerod.  II.  1  and -2  that  (  piix  treitieri  AmuU  kchu  v« 
the  only  argummi  he  can  produce  agsinin  the  Msertion  of  the  Eff)-ptiAnK,  that  1 
demwulfd  ihrit  princnw  for  hU  h»mn,  is  that  rnmbroc!!  wai  not  her  «m. 


Memnon. 


179 


fable  and  history  about  the  city  itself,  in  the  usual  style  of 
the  French  Academicians,  who  in  treating  of  a  place  or  a  person 
seem  always  to  proceed  on  (lie  supposition  that  tlieir  learned 
colleagues  never  heard  of  the  name  before.  But  as  to  the  main 
point,  the  matter  of  Serapis,  all  that  I  could  iind  proved 
by  the  dissertation  is,  that,  wherever  an  opinion  has  been 
firmly  cmbracett,  everything  will  be  sure  to  make  for  it.  The 
opinion  wliich  Mr  J.  adopts  about  the  deity  of  Sinop*.'  is 
so  far  from  buing  established  l>y  the  Abbe,  that  it  is  only 
one  among  a  great  number  of  conjectures  which  he  proposes 
as  about  equally  probable,  and  is  not  even  that  which  he 
himself  prefers.  All  that  is  disputable  in  the  question  we 
arc  now  considering  he  takes  for  granted.  The  difficulty 
with  him  is  not  where  to  find  Egyptians  out  of  Egypt,  but 
to  choose  between  the  numerous  points  from  which  an  Egyp- 
tian deity  might  have  been  brought  to  Sinope.  He  observes 
that  Sinope  might  have  received  the  worship  of  Scrapie,  if 
not  imniediatoly  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  neighbouring 
provinces,  who  had  it  from  the  Syrians  anil  Phcenicians, 
among  whom  it  had  been  introduced  from  Egypt,  at  least 
from  the  Colchians,  an  Egyptian  colony,  with  whom  Sinope 
was  closely  connected  by  commerce,  or  perhaps  from  the 
Milesians,  whose  colony  it  was,  and  who,  having  kept  up 
an  intimate  connexion  with  Egypt  ever  flince  the  time  of 
Psammetichus,  could  not  fail  to  be  thoroughly  verged  in  the 
Egyptian  religion.  This  last  is  in  fact  the  conjecture  he 
prefers,  so  that  he  really  lends  no  support  whatever  to  Mr 
J^s  hypothesis:  and  to  remove  all  difficulties  he  subjoins: 
"  I  might  add  that  the  Athenians,  whose  colony  the  Mile- 
siaos  themselves  were,  had  too  groat  a  veneration  for  Isis 
and  Serapis,  the  knowledge  of  whom  they  had  received  from 
Egypt  through  Cecrops  and  Erechtheus,  two  of  their  kings 
who  were  natives  of  that  country,  not  to  hove  established  or 
promoted  the  worship  of  those  two  Divinities  on  the  coasts 
of  the  Euxine,  where  they  were  so  powerful  during  a  long 
period,  and  where  they  founded  so  many  celebrated  colonies."" 
(p.  5O0.) 

In  the  meanwhile  the  main  point  on  which  Mr  J.''8  argu- 
ment depends — that  the  gofl  of  Sinope  had  ever  been  an 
Egyptian  deity   before  hv  was  introduced  into  the  temple  at 


18U 


Meinnon. 


Alexandria — is  left  by  the  Abbe  in  equal  uncertainty  vith 
the  roud  by  which  he  reached  Sinopi*.  '*  Would  we  know, 
he  asks,  to  what  country  the  worship  of  Jupiter  Plutus 
originally  belonged  !  It  is  very  prubaiile  that  it  was  Egypt, 
£vcn  if  Plutarch  (De  Is.  et  Os.)  did  not  assure  us  that 
this  God  was  no  other  than  the  Egyptian  Serapis,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  mistake  him  from  the  inudius  on  his  bead, 
his  Egyptian  dress,  his  attitude^  his  demeanour,  and  his  hands 
raised  toward  heaven.'"  How  far  a  l'ni^take  on  this  subject 
is  possible,  may  be  partly  inferred  from  a  previous  remark 
of  the  Abbe's  on  the  same  figure,  which  be  says  is  drest 
in  the  Greek  or  rather  in  the  Egi/ptian  faahion'^y  but  will  be- 
come much  clearer  from  an  inspection  of  the  figure  itself, 
vbicH  could  certainly  never  have  suggested  such  a  thought 
to  one  who  did  not  view  it  through  the  glass  of  a  favorite 
hypothesis.  The  good  Abbti  has  the  truly  astonishing  sim- 
plicity to  add  :  **  We  need  only  compare  several  medals  of 
Egyptian  cities  on  which  Serapis  is  represented,  with  the 
reverse  of  this  of  Gordian  and  several  other  medals  of  Greek 
towns,  which  exhibit  the  Jupiter  Plutus  of  the  Greeks,  to 
perceive  at  once  that  it  is  one  and  tlie  same  deity.'' 

After  this  we  could  not  liavu  been  surprised  to  find  that 
he  received  the  whole  gtory  told  by  FUitaicli  and  Tacitus 
88  a  matter  of  fact.  But  since  Mr  J.  certainly  does  not, 
it  would  have  been  more  to  his  purpose  to  have  assigned 
some  reason  for  thinking  that  the  Pluto  of  Sinopi-  was  an 
Egyptian  god,  than  to  have  appealed  to  the  Abbe,  on  whose 
dissertation  I  should  not  have  dwelt  so  long,  if  it  had  not 
afforded  a  signal  example  of  the  danger  of  trusting  to  re* 
ferences,  even  in  the  writings  of  the  most  learnwl  and  candid 
men.  It  would  carry  us  to  a  great  distance  from  our  subject, 
and  would  be  of  little  use  to  discuss  this  question  :  but  I  may 
be  allowed  to  remark  that  the  accounts  we  have  of  the  trHnsac- 
liou  raise  no  presumption  whatever  in  favour  of  Mr  J.'s 
opinion.  It  seems  very  clear  that  Ptolemy^s  object  in  the  jug- 
gle he  concocted  with  the  aid  of  bis  Greek  and  Egyptian 
theologians  (one  of  whom  was  the  Manetho  on  who^e  veracity 
so  much  of  what  sometimes  passes  for  history  de{>ends)   was 

"  Ia  Birore  dt  S^rapiii  eal  ici  witat  •  U  Orecqut,  ou  pjutot  a  rEgyplienne.  p.  iV*. 


Memnon. 


181 


to  promote  the  trade  of  iUexandria,  aud  to  unite  his  Greek 
and  Egyptian  subjects,  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  deity, 
who  might  be  considered  as  belonging  equally  to  both.  The 
God  of  Sinope  wau  recoinineiideil  by  the  variety  and  am- 
biguity of  his  attributes  and  en^^igns  which,  uitb  the  help 
of  a  little  pious  fraud,  reudered  him  peculiarly  lit  for  the 
purpose.  If  the  neighbourhood  of  Colchis  had  iiiHuenced 
the  king*'s  choice,  that  circumstance  would  probably  have 
been  mentioned  among  tlie  proofs  by  ^Inch  Manetho  and 
Timothcus  convinced  him  of  the  identity  uf  Pluto  and  Se- 
rapis  '^. 

Rtit  to  return  from  this  digression,  it  appears  that  we 
cannot  rely  on  the  expedition  of  Sesostns  as  a  historical 
ground  for  the  legentl  of  Memnon,  even  though  we  may  admit 
it  lo  be  highly  probable  that  he,  or  some  other  king  of  Egypt, 
really  gained  those  naval  victories  which  are  represented  in 
the  sculptures  of  Medinat-Abou*';  for  we  shall  not  look  for 
the  scene  of  these  exploits  among  the  Cyclades,  but  in  the 
Arabian  gulf,  where  the  monuments  mentioned  by  Strabo 
may  certainly  be  genuine ' '.  There  is  however  still  a  third 
supposition  uliicli   I   will  venture  to  hint,  with  the  diHidence 


■*  Thr  nature  of  ihe  iranj^artion  will  be  boKC  undentood  by  oompBrin^  the  pugwi 
vritm  Tu-itiu  II.  iv.  1)3.  I'luUrch  Do  U.  el  0%.  2U,  lo  whom  inuy  be  added  Eu- 
iit9Uh>  ad  Hlonyit.  VoA,  with  two  of  the  fathers,  CIcmcnA  Al.  Proirept.  ».  4.  ami  Cyril 
amtra  Jul.  p.  13.  Lest  I  xhould  appear  to  disniiw  the  eubject  too  hastily.  1  will  trans- 
ailK  the  remark  of  a  tuodero  itkic,  liemhardy  on  Kusiathiiu :  .^erapidJa  rulutm, 
quen  Jovcin  nitiriii  fui-rv  <jui  in(cr{irelHrentiir,  a  Ptolcniaeo  Solcrtr,  prudenltutuio 
romilio,  ne  sacra  pere^ina  videretur  Aegyptiisinvitis  uhtnuisiie,  uioniiu  Nciliret  inwtn- 
ttii,  r^inniw  (cujus  numinn»  effif^um  dei  exhibcrc  docet  Eekbel  D.  N.  P.  1.  Vol.  ii. 
p.  39l,eiquc  accvdit  UioffcniB  Focetia  ap.  Uiog.  Laen.rt.ft3)  fniiao dq>romptum  exp>D- 
•uit  7'acitu».  Sua  Ci.  I.  VoHii  hatiolatin  huic  deo  per  AcKyptatti  ptlKani  adjudicantis 
Tenoatianeiii,  nititur  conjecturifi  ei  arguuitniaiionibu*  inccTlisi  i  q»uiiTM)uam  proxlme 
abcat  lenteniia  Jarobfiio  {de  Aleninnn.  p.  \U)  prabata,  ul  Serapia  ab  Aegyptii»  tnercato- 
tibu*  tn  Colcbidcm  sit  traiu>lacu»  poMcaiiue  patria  in  jura  reatitutun. 

**  Kittcr,A1rika  p.744,  rctiiarkH  :  '*  what  HcTodiHuft  and  l>iodorus,  following  llcca- 
tviu  and  the  nrcnunt*  nt  th«  priesu,  relate  of  .ScsoHtriB,  seems  to  be  confinncd  by  tliexe 
Mulptures."  Thifl  however  depends  on  the  question  whetlier  th«  hotdlt  navy  and 
erewD  are  really  Indian. 

^  8ttab.  XVI.  p.  ;i>!4.  At  Deira  on  tlic  vtraittof  Babclminde)  It  waa  laid  anfkitv 
/Ifc-m  TEtatatnpM*  t<h»  AlyinrTiou  finfitunrav  Itpolv  ypd^t^ttvi  ttJc  Sidfiamiv  avrov, 
♦rti«-rrti  ytifi  -ni'tf  AlStoviin  Kai  ttic  TptuyXoivriKtiu  -nprn-ro^  «(CT(t<rrj»ri^a^«iK)T  o&Tvr 
«l'Ta  Aiafim  (li  tijk  'ApafHatr,  iia»T4u6*p  ■nin  'A^rlav  iirt\?taii  tijV  vi-fiiraaaV  itA  (col 
WvAAaX''*'  i»ff«(rT(iio«  -jitipaKtx  trpuoayaifrvoirtnt  kui  (i<fiififivpiTd  iuTUr  \iytmit»w 
9ta¥  Up^v.  This  tnuit  be  romparcd  with  the  pasu^c  above  qnoted  about  ttemiramis. 
Pliny,  N.  II.  vt.  :tl,  uy*  HucuMiue  .'^e«a8triit  exerdtum  duxit. 


\H^ 


MemnoH. 


ihat  belongs  both  to  the  obscurity  of  the  subject  and 
mv  oun  verv  imperfect  means  of  forming  an  opinion  on  it. 
The  relation  between  the  £g}*ptians  and  the  Indians  is  a 
question  that  has  long  exercised  the  curiosity  t>f  the  learned. 
That  the  former  were  an  Elliiopian  colony,  seems  now  to 
be  placed  almost  beyond  dispute  by  the  concurrence  of  tra- 
dition with  arguments  drawn  from  the  nature  and  history  of 
the  two  countries.  But  the  origin  of  tlie  Ethiopians  them- 
selves has  long  appeared  to  be  buried  in  impenetrable  darkness. 
They  claimed,  like  many  other  nations,  the  honour  of  being 
autochthons*'.  When  the  I^lacodonians  became  masters  of 
Egypt,  and  Greek  travellers  began  to  explore  Ethiopia,  and 
sometimes  made  a  long  stay  at  Meroc'*,  it  is  probable  that 
many  conjectures  were  formed  on  this  point.  But  it  is  scarcely 
before  the  Roman  period  that  we  hear  of  a  tradition  that 
the  Ethiopians  were  of  Indian  origin:  and  the  writers  who 
report  it  are  not  of  the  highest  authority.  Philo-stratus  in- 
troduces an  Indian  Braniin  larchas,  relating  that  the  Ethio- 
pians of  Mcroe  were  once  inhabitants  of  India  ;  but  having 
killed  their  King  Ganges,  thev  were  pursued  by  his  .spectre, 
and  coulit  Hnd  no  resting  place :  (before,  we  are  to  suppose, 
they  quitted  the  country  ■').  Elsewhere  he  brings  in  an 
Egyptian  saying,  that  he  had  heard  from  his  father  that 
the  Indians  were  the  wisest  of  men,  and  the  Ethiopians  a 
colony  of  the  Indians,  who  preserved  many  of  the  institutions 
of  their  ancestors'*.  It  seems  evident  that,  beside  the  sus- 
picious character  of  the  author,  these  accounts  deserve  not 
the  slightest  attention  as  an  Indian  tradition,  and  that  they 
cannot  have  been  an  Ethiopian  one.  Wc  find  howe\er  the 
same  fact  more  simply  stated  by  Africanus,  in  a  passage 
abruptly  inserted  after  the  mention  of  Amenophthis-Memnon 
in  a  list  uf  Egyptian  kings,  under  a  title;  "  cooccrning  the 
Ethiopians,  whence  they  were,  and  where  they  settled  C  whicli 
is  explained  as  follows:   "  The  Ethiopians  migrated  from  the 


'^  Dtodor.  III.  3.     OTi  aim  ^injXvJH  iXS^tmr,    J\X'    iyyntU    oyrtt    -ni*   x^"*' 

"  Pliny  N.  II,  vi.  Primus  Datiim  ultrii  MCToen  longe  tubvectus:  mox  Arms- 
creon  et  Uinn  tt  Baniin  i  Sitnmiideit  minor  ctfam  qumiinennio  in  Mcroc  tnonitis  euni 
dc  Acthiopin  tirriberei. 

"  Vit.  Apnll.  Ml.  n.  u  VI. a. 


Mem  no  n 


183 


river  Indus,  and  aettled  on  the  froutiers  of  Egypt'**."  It  is 
unnecessary  to  dwell  on  the  extreme  uiirertaiiity  of  such 
statements,  and  I  will  only  point  out  two  causes  which  may 
explain  their  origin,  and  whicli  do  not  appear  to  have  been 
sufficiently  noticed  by  those  who,  hiiving  been  inclined  to 
adopt  thcni  on  other  grounds,  have  attributed  a  higher  value 
to  them  than  they  can  fairly  claim'*.  In  the  6rst  place  we 
find  that  early  after  the  Macedonian  conquests  attempts 
b^an  to  be  made  to  deduce  the  Egyptian  mythology  from 
the  Indian.  Plutarch  censures  Phylarchus  for  having  said 
that  Dionysus  first  brouglit  two  oxen  into  Egypt  from  India, 
and  that  the  one  was  named  Apis^  the  other  Osiris''.  It  is 
dear  enough  to  what  historical  inferences  these  mythologicat 
conjectures  were  likely  to  lead.  In  the  next  place  we  read 
in  Procopius  as  an  acknowledged  fact,  that  the  Nile  flows  from 
India™.  When  this  hypothesis  was  first  started  we  do  not 
know,  but  whenever  it  was  receivctl,  the  conclusion  that  the 
Ethiopians  came  from  the  same  land  in  which  the  river  took 
Ub  rise,  might  naturally  follow. 

But  however  unworthy  of  rpgard  may  be  the  scanty 
testimfuiy  of  the  ancients  on  this  i^uci^tion,  there  are  other 
lources  of  information  Ktitl  open,  from  which  it  may  not  be 
too  sanguine  to  hope  for  a  solution  of  it.  This  can  only  l>e 
looked  for  from  a  comparison  of  the  ancient  systems  of  re- 
ligion and  polity  in  the  two  countries:  but  it  seems  by  no 
means  improbable  that  such  an  investigation  may  finally 
ascertain  the  degree  of  connexion  between  them,  and  their 
relative  antiquity.      In   the  mean   while   the   author   of  an 

**  8rnodI.  t.  p.  2HA.  n«pl  Al9t4ir»y,  -wottii  ^vav,  xal  trtv  lifict'TaV.  AJPitnm 
4w6  'Iv&v  xoTB^ot  «VaffT«rT«  *pi>«  Tp  Alyi^TTw  tSiotaair.  Parth«y,  De  Philii  Id- 
wU  p.  H,  thinks  this  puwge  spuiious  u  to  the  fonn,  though  not,  if  I  understand  hint, 
Mto  the  KuhiUncr.  He  twys,  after  mcDlicming  one  of  ibc  pnua^ca  of  PhilMtntut; 
AlU  coloniae  Indicae  mentio  apud  Synccllum  spuria  nobiH  videtur,  cum  reo  Aethio- 
pntn  totn  lihro  noo  aioplius  coniinentorenlur.  Duo  vcdus  :  irr^i  AifichrMv — tfKrftrfw 
inter  <|uKdm(^imuin  ei  quadrageaimum  pTiiiiuni  Acgypti  regem  intern pe»iilve  Inter. 
jflcti,  {If)  pro  ciipitiii  amiMi  initio  argumeniove  inari;iiii  adscripto  habemuH. 

^  Bohlen  i.  p.  I  III.  Mtys  *'  The  atuckii  on  the^c  i^timoniea  may  be  parried  with 
00  IcM  cue  than  it  may  be  ihevn  on  the  other  hand  that  they  arc  not  concliuivc.'* 

"  De  la.  et  0».  c.  29- 

*•  De  Edif.  vi.  near  the  bcBinninf{.  NoXo*  fAivn-woranA^  «f  'litiiSu  iw'  A(>ii*^cii/ 
^p^fittxTt.  Perhgp*  we  may  ■luibutc  something  to  the  distinction  made  by  Hero. 
dotiu,  and  seemingly  confirmed  by  Homer,  between  the  Euitem  and  Southeni  G(hi> 
optan*. 


1U4 


Memnou. 


excellent  work  on  Indian  antiquities  has  produced  a  number 
of  very  strong  arguments,  to  prove  that  the  religion  of  Kgypt 
must  have  been  trnnsplnnted  from  India  ^.  That  he  has 
decided  the  point  would  porhnps  be  too  much  for  any  one, 
certainly  for  one  who  is  not  fnmiliar  with  the  literature  of 
both  countries,  to  pronounce.  But  if  upon  continued  ex- 
amination this  opinion  should  be  as  generally  received  as  that 
of  the  Ethiopian  origin  of  the  Egyptian  priesthoiHU  which 
not  long  ago  was  as  generally  rejected""',  we  should  tben 
have  another  key  to  the  mysterious  legend  we  have  been 
discussing.  For  as  it  would  then  be  clear  that  there  was 
a  historical  connexion  between  the  Indian  Menu  and  the 
Egyptian  Menes,  so  it  would  not  be  an  extravagant  con- 
jecture, that  the  movements  which  transpurted  an  ludiau 
colony  into  Africa,  vibrated  through  the  heart  to  the  ex- 
tremities of  Asia,  and  that  the  same  shock  which  agitated 
the  nations,  carried  the  name  of  Meninon  on  the  wave  of 
conquest  and  migration  from  the  Indus  to  the  jEsepus.  As 
however  I  do  not  wish  the  reader  to  strain  his  eves  upon 
this  distant  retrospect,  I  will  conclude  with  reminding  him 
that  the  hypothesis  here  proposed  is  quite  independent  of 
all  these  conjectures,  though  perhaps  if  it  were  to  be  tried 
by  their  merits  it  might  bear  to  be  cuiifr<)nted  with  its  rival; 
but  that  the  advantage  it  claims  over  its  antagonist  is,  that 
it  gets  rid  of  a  cumbrous  load  of  hypothetical  macliinery, 
which,  though  it  cost  the  ingenious  author  Uttle  trouble  to 
raise,  his  readers  cannot  so  easily  support,  and  that  it  preserves 
the  essence  of  an  ancient  tradition,  while  it  illustrates  the 
character  of  the  people  which  interwove  the  foreign  legend 
with  their  national  poetry. 

C.  T. 


^  T.  Bohlen.     litu  alte  tndien  mit  httandertr  Rnekneht  at^f  Aeptfpttn.  _ 

**  Wcffteling  oq  Diodor.  lit.  3.  {Vol.  t.  p.  17A)  observea  :  Quod  *i  lamen  Aej^y^te 
retpondcnil i  locu^ «fftiet,dul)iam  nan  cit  (]uin  itiideiii  rationfbuit  puf^nutnt,  et  .Aethiopu 
sua*  cue  colonos  pcncndpreni :  mancbit  crgn  Ur  nub  juiliee,  donee  aliuiule,  utri  lad- 
quiUlB  pme&ient,  pmbKbitur :  quod  Aegyptiis  foruwu  in  facili  eriu 


I 

I 


Amoxi;  the  many  illustrations  history  ufTords  of  rhe  in- 
mlability  uf  human  greatness,  onv  not  the  leufit  remarkable  is 
thai  the  site  of  the  **  Memnonian  city"  should  have  become 
a  subject  of  controversy.  Many  of  our  readers  are  probably 
acquainted  with  the  difference  of  opinions  that  has  arisen  on 
this  question,  who  do  not  know  that  it  has  been  at  length, 
if  not  completely  decided,  at  least  brought  so  near  to  that 
point,  as  scarcely  to  oduiit  of  any  farther  doubt.  This  is 
one  of  the  services  rendered  to  Oriental  geo^aphy  by  the  ce- 
lebrated Orientalist,  Joseph  von  Ilanimer-  But  the  discovery 
by  which  he  threw  a  new  light  on  the  subject  was  first  pub- 
lifthed  in  a  German  review,  which  I  believe  has  but  a  very 
narrow  circulation  in  this  country,  the  Vienna  Jahrhiichrr  der 
LitcratWy  Vol.  viii,  and  there  is  readOD  to  believe  that  few 
even  of  the  persons  wlio  take  an  interest  in  eastern  geography 
arc  yet  informed  of  it.  At  least  in  a  popiilar  work,  the  author 
of  which  has  paid  more  than  ordinary  attention  to  eastern 
geography,  the  opinion  which  v.  Hammer  has  refuted,  or  at 
Iea5t  shaken  to  its  foundation,  is  adopted  and  stated  in  a 
manner  which  clearly  implies  that  the  writer  was  not  awju-e 
of  the  strongest  arguments  that  have  been  brought  against  it. 
In  the  life  of  Alexander  the  Great  in  Mr  Murray's  Cabinet 
Library,  p.  H)8,  169,  Sum  is  de8cril>ed  as  situate  on  the 
Ckotupesy  the  modern  Kerah^  and  as  corresponding  to  Shu^y 
"where  a  small  temple  still  commeniorfltes  the  burial  place  of 
Daniel,*"  The  proposition  which  v,  tiammer  inoiiilaiiis  is  that 
tlic  Kerah  is  not  the  Choa»peSy  nor  Sfnis,  SuaUt  but  tliat  the 
modem  Schuster  or  Tontar  occupies  the  site  of  tl>e  ancient 
city  of  Alemnon,  and  that  the  Choaspes  is  the  iiuKlern  Karoon. 
A  glance  at  a  good  map  of  Asia  will  shew  that  the  distance 
between  the  two  places  is  so  considerable  as  to  render  the 
Vol..  II.  No.  +.  A  A 


1»6 


On  the  Position  of  Susa. 


question  of  some  inijwrtance  to  ancient  history  :  aiitl  I  may 
therefore  hope  that  my  lalwnr  will  not  be  wasletl  if  I  make 
V.  Hammer's  discovery  more  pfenerally  known.  For  this  pur- 
pose I  subjoin  a  tranfilation  of  that  part  of  his  article  which 
relates  to  this  point.  But  for  the  sake  of  readers  to  whom 
the  subject  may  not  be  familiar,  1  will  first  briefly  state  the 
principal  arguments  which  had  been  previously  adduced  on 
each  side  of  the  controversy.  This  I  shidl  do  with  the  as- 
sistance, and  partly  in  the  words  of  Mr  Kiniieir,  who  in  his 
Geographical  Memoir  of  the  Persian  Kmpire  (j).  lOl— lOfJ)  has 
reviewe<i  the  conflicting  reasonings  of  Major  Ilennel  and  Doctor 
Vincent,  and  has  declared  himself,  though  luit  with  absolute 
confidence,  in  favour  of  the  former,  who  places  Su$a  on  the 
site  of  Skitfi  and  on  the  banks  of  the  Kerah^  or  Ilaweeua, 
or  Karn^sUy  against  the  latter,  who  contends  that  Susa  is 
Shuster,  and  the  Karoon  the  Choa^pea. 

Mr  Kinneir,  as  an  eyewitness,  informs  us,  (p.  9%)  that 
"  about  seven  or  eight  miles  to  the  west  of  Dpx-pfwui  (a  town 
on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Abza/.,  twenty  eight  miles  weal  of 
Skrt^ter)  commence  the  ruins  of  Shnet  stretching  not  lew 
perhaps  than  twelve  miles  from  one  extremity  to 
They  extend  as  far  a.s  the  eastern  bank  of  the  AVrn 
an  immense  space  between  that  river  and  the  Akt^L 
the  ruins  of  Ciatipfmn^  Bahylon^  and  Kufn^  consist 
of  earth  and  rubbish  covered  with  broken  pieces  of 
coloured  tile.  These  moimds  boar  some  resembla 
pyramids  of  BabtjUm^  with  this  difference,  that  i^ 
being  entirely  made  of  brick,  many  arc  farmed  of  I 
pieces  of  tile,  with  irregular  layu-rs  of  brick  and 
or  six  feet  in  thickness,  to  serve,  it  should  seem, 
of  prop  to  the  mass.  Large  blocks  of  marble,  cow 
hieroglyphics,  are  not  unfrequently  here  discover 
Arabs,  when  digging  in  search  of  hidden  treasurej 
the  foot  of  the  most  elevated  of  the  pyramids  stands  I 
of  Vaniefy  a  small  and  apparently  a  modem  buildin 
on  the  spot  where  the  relics  of  that  prophet  were 
to  rest.'"" 

Major  Uenner.s  arguments    in  favour  of  .SAiM  mrt  •^ 
in    number.     "First  (as    Mr  Kinneir   states  them) 
larity  of  name;  and  the  situation,  which   agrees  bet... 


On  the  Poaitiwt  of  Su«a. 


187 


the  distance  between  SardU  and  Suaa  mentioniKl  in  the  tablets 
of  Aristagoras  than  thnt  of  Shuster.  Secondly,  the  legend 
of  the  Prophet  Daniel  whose  coffin  was  found  at  Sk»«;  and 
thirdly,  that  Susa  ouglit  to  be  placed  on  a  river  which  has 
its  sources  in  Afe.dia.'"'  1  pass  over  Dr  Vincent's  reply  to 
the  first  and  second  of  these  arguments,  since  the  reader 
will  easily  guess  them,  as  well  as  his  own  mistake,  which 
Mr  Kinncir  corrects,  about  the  name  Kuxistan  (which  he 
confounds  with  Kuhistan  and  derives  from  the  mountains 
which  surround  the  province).  But  as  to  the  river  of  Sttsa^ 
Dr  V.  observes  that  it  was  i\\e  Euku«:  that  Nearchue  sailed 
up  to  Stua  without  enteritig  the  Shat-iU-Arab ;  which  he 
eovld  not  have  dmuu  hod  thnt  city  stofxt.  nn  the  Kerah: 
and  that,  when  Alexander  descended  the  Kuleus,  he  sent  his 
disabled  ships  through  the  cut  of  the  Hafar  into  the  Shal- 
uJ-Arab.  And  finally  that  a  strong  reason  for  placing  Susa 
at  Shuster  occurs  in  Ibu  Haukul,  who  says  tiiat  there  it 
not  in  ail  Kuxistan  any  mountain  except  at  Skuater^  Jondi 
Shapour,  and  Ardx:  and  ns  it  is  exndent  that  the  castle  at 
Susa  was  a  place  of  utrength,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
(hat  it  stood  upon  a  hill. 

The  words  in  Italics  contain  the  strength  of  Dr  V.'s 
reasoning,  which  however  dix's  not  convince  Mr  Kinncir,  who 
fortiSes  Major  RennePs  position  with  an  additional  argument 
derived  from  the  riiins  of  .SViMw  above  descriU'iI,  which  is 
certainly  very  striking.  He  remarks,  "  Strabci  tells  ns,  that 
the  Persian  capital  was  entirely  built  of  brick,  there  not 
being  a  stone  in  the  province.  Now  the  quarries  of  Shuster 
are  very  celcbratetl,  and  alnio.st  the  whole  of  the  town  is 
huilt  of  stone:  but  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  environs  of 
Shus,  which  was  evidently  formed  of  brick,  as  will  appear 
from  my  description  of  the  pyramids  that  now  remain." 

I  must  here  stop  to  observe  that  Mr  K.  makes  Strabo  say 
something  which  I  cannot  find  in  his  Greek  text,  and  which 
lualt-rially  affects  the  question.  Strabo  says  of  Susa^  "  The 
walls  of  the  city,  and  the  temples  and  the  palace  likewise,  were 
built,  OS  those  of  HahijUniy  of  brick  and  bitumen,  according 
fo  some  authors.^*      But  ho  docs  not  add  here,  nor  anv  where 


««OaT»i>  tipiit.a9i  Tircn. 


On  the  Poaitiou  of  Suna. 

else  in  his  description  of  Suaianui  that  there  teas  not  a  «tone 
in  the  province,  unless  Mr  K.  A^oUects  this  from  what  he 
»ays  of  the  rugged  mountains  that  separate  Susictna  from 
Persis* 

Still  after  all  the  ahatenicnt  which  must  lie  made  on  ac- 
count of  the  manner  in  which  Strabo  expresses  himself,  which 
implies  that  all  his  authorities  were  not  agreed  on  the  subject, 
it  mav  (h?  admitted  that  Mr  Kinncir  has  strengthened  Major 
Rennet's  case  by  this  observation.  But  ou  the  other  liand 
he  has  nothing  to  oppose  to  Dr  V'inccnt''8  argument  about 
the  citadel  of  Hitsa,  which  Straho  and  others  s]>eak  of,  and 
of  wliich  there  seems  to  be  no  trace  at  Shus:  and  to  meet 
the  objection  drawn  from  the  voyage  of  Nearchus,  he  is  forced 
to  contend  that  the  Knleu»  niul  tlic  Chon»pps  were  two  dif- 
ferent rivers.  He  says:  **  If  we  admit  the  ruins  of  Skwi  to 
be  those  of  ant^ient  Sitsa,  the  Kefah  will  correttpond  to  the 
description  of  the  Ch^inapes,  but  not  to  that  of  the  Kuleus: 
for  the  latter  entered  the  gulf  by  a  chnnuel  of  its  owo, 
wbilat  the  Kerah  Hows  into  the  Shat-ul-Arub.  As  It  is  not 
however  ascertained  thai  the  Choa&pef  and  Euiats  were  the 
saniCf  &:c."*  Hence  the  aen^e  in  which  lie  understands  the 
statement  that  Nearchus  sailed  up  to  Stua^  is  this,  **  Ne- 
archus might  have  ascended  cither  the  Abzal  or  the  Karoon, 
without  entering  the  Shat-ul-Arab ;  and  certainly  could  not 
have  done  so  by  the  Kerah,  which  meets  that  stream  be- 
tween Batfsitrri  and  Koma?  But  this  circutnstance  will  not 
be  much  in  favour  of  l)r  V.'s  assumption;  /or  the  ruins  of 
Shus  approacfi  within  a  few  mile«  of  the  Abzal:  and  we 
are  uncertain  whether  the  Euleus  fiowetl  to  the  east  or  west 
of  iVu^a."  Tliese  few  miles,  it  must  be  remembered,  ac- 
cording to  the  passage  above  quoted  from  Mr  K.,  are  as 
manv  as  seven  or  eight. 

■  troiMffriirrti  optKini  -rpitjf'Ia  ««!  tHTvra^ot  ft^rd^it  rwf  £wiro-f«w  K«t  rtft  Vltp- 

*  In  \\\t  "Life  of  Alexander  the  ttrcst,"  the  tiuinu  is  spokn  ol"  as  tfie  mmt 
tiret  with  the  ('hua»pe»,  the  modeni  Krrnh  (p.  352),  and  yet  Alexander  i<t  m»it 
to  enter  the  PmUnUulf  by  the  main  cliannci  of  the  Karoon  (p.  3^};  which  is  mcaai 
for  a  tramtlation  o*'  Arrian*s  account  that  Alexander  *irr»»Xri  naTti  -nli-  liiXtdtv 
tntToiiAv  4vf  (vl  fldXiurffov,  vit,  7<  How  the  author  recondlva  thexe  two  BtMcourin* 
I  am  al  a  liMs  tn  Imagine.  Ar  to  Mr  Kinncir'ii  cxplannCion.  il  should  he  eomparrd  1 
with  the  enpresvionii  of  Arrian,   Ind.  <■.  3ft.    •LnT<t<m|<rni   td  rinTtnAir   iv   ^ima — J 


•WMC  Po&UioH  of  Susa. 


1B9 


The  reuilor  will  now  he  prepared  to  liear  the  observations 
uf  the  learned  writer  who.  has  since  taken  up  the  Kubjeet, 
which   Mr  K.  was  eomj>elled   to  own  he  left,  as  he  fount!  it» 

After  observing  that  "  Mr  Kinneir  has  very  superfluously 
mode  the  Kuhu^i  and  the  Chminpes  two  distinct  rivers  in  his 
map,*  though  d'Anville,  Vincent,  Mannert,  and  after  them 
Hoeck,  (in  a  Latin  prize  essay  entitled  Veterifi  Mediae  et 
Perstae  nionunienia)  have  ])laced  the  identity  of  the  Kuleua 
and  the  C/inaspes  beyond  all  doubt,'"  he  proceeds  to  say, 
**  Arrian,  I*liny,  and  the  Bible  place  Su^a  on  the  Kuleua; 
llcrodotuit,  i^trabo  and  Curtius,  on  the  Choaspes ;  and  what 
sonie  relate  of  the  Kuieiu,  others  mention  with  regard  to 
the  Ckoaspe«^  that  it  was  famed  for  its  exceedingly  liglu  and 
excellent  water,  that  the  Persian  kings  drank  of  no  other, 
and  carried  it  with  them  on  their  journies."  Then  after 
mentioning  the  difference  of  opinions  as  to  tiie  position  of 
»y«*rt,  and  Dr  Vincent's  argument  drawn  from  the  voyage 
of  Nearchus,  he  adds,  "  Without  dwelling  on  the  force  of 
this  and  tlie  other  reasons  adduced  bv  Vincent  fur  the  identity 
oi  Sunn  and  Shunter,  we  liasten  to  communicate  a  passage 
from  the  original  sources  of  Persian  Geography,  which  de- 
cides the  question,  and  fixes  the  site  of  the  ancient  Susn  at 
Sh^ister.  This  passage  occurs  in  the  valuable  Manuscript, 
No.  43.S  of  the  Im])erial  library,  which  steems  to  be  a  jiortion 
of  the  Nusetol-Kulub." 

**The  Tigrin  of  Shuster  rises  in  the  yellow  mountain 
{KuhiHerd)  and  the  (other)  mountains  of  Great  Lnuritifnn, 
an<l  after  a  course  of  thirty  and  odd  parosangs  reaches  Shunter. 
It  is  always  cool,  and  digests  food,  so  that  in  the  hot  weather 


*  Tile  tlUtinctian  bawever  Is  not  altoKelhcr  liiipcHluoufl  for  .Mr  KinTicir's  Argument: 
die  epithet  would  bo  more  «ppliaiblc  w  Mr  iMitford'*)  diBtinction  b«twe«n  the  Kuffus 
■u)  the  I'an'ttiffTiir.  vhlcl),  he  ima(pne«,  both  fell  by  Mparaie  (noiUh*  into  the  Peniaa 
fuU^  nartng  thcit  counu  nearly  parallel  nnil  not  very  diiiant  for  »  rmiMdenihle  way 
before  reaching  the  fO*"*  "^  adds,  '*  Su*.a  Mood  on  Ulc  Euieua.  Bui  thU  river  woa, 
lowuilit  ttii  mouth,  M  inconvenient  for  naviRntuii),  that  the  prefenhle  counc  fur 
voweli  fntm  the  f\iM  to  Su»a  wan  up  the  Pa*iUffrit  to  a  canal  eoDimimlcatinff  with 
the  EuUut."  (Cb.  t.v.  Sect,  r.)  Nc  authority  ix  cited  for  ibU  aanenkn,  bal  (t  seeni« 
to  be  founded  ou  the  description  of  Alexander's  voy^t  down  the  Bttltxts,  Arrian 
VII.  7.  combined  with  Ind.  42.  in  neither  of  which  paiuuijcea  however  i*  ihcic  any 
4llu»ino  In  surh  a  canal.     The  only  on«  tnentioned'  w  the  llafar  f^it. 


190 


(ht  the  Position  of  Sutta, 


the  people  of  the  couiitrv  rely  on  its  c!igc?stivc  quality,  and 
eat  coarse  food,  and  it  is  digested^." 

'*  In  this  passage  the  excellent  quality,  on  account  of 
which  the  water  of  the  Kuhua  or  Choa^pes  was  drunk 
by  the  kings  of  Persia,  is  sufficiently  marked :  this  projx?rty 
of  the  river,  which  the  lapse  of  centuries  has  not  ilianjjed, 
at  once  unties  the  knot,  and  would  of  itself  suffice  to  deter-^_ 
mine  the  identity  of  the  two  streams,  if  the  name,  7Vgrila^| 
of  Shuster.,  did  not  expressly  testify  that  this  river  united 
with  the  Pasitigris  is  the  same  which  Nearchus  sailed  up 
with  his  fleet  from  the  sea,  and  down  which  Alexander  sailed 
from  Suaa  to  meet  him.  The  Pajfitigris,  the  modern  Jerahi, 
flowed  into  the  Kuleus,  the  modern  Karoon,  from  the  east, 
and  since  the  river  of  Shuster  is  likewise  called  the  Tigru 
of  tShttster^  the  modem  Persian  geography  has  preserved  the 
name  of  the  Pasitigris  which  was  used  by  Ncarchus.  So 
the  SimoU  toward  its  mouth  is  called  the  Merulere  after  the 
Scamander  which  falls  into  It." 

In  a  sabscqucnt  passage,  after  remarking  on  the  want  of 
an  eminence  at  Skus  corresponding  to  the  citadel  at  Siua^ 
he  add^:  *' Our  authorities  enable  us  completely  to  demolish 
one  of  the  strongest  arguments  of  our  opponents  founded  on 
DanieVs  Tomb,  which  is  shewn  at  .^Am*  and  not  at  Shttster,^ 
The  following  extract  from  the  valuable  list  of  cities  by  Achmed 
of  Tus  proves  that  Daniel's  tomb  was  originally  at  Shtufter, 
and  not  at  Shtts,  and  that  the  prophet^s  body  was  transported 
from  Shuster  to  .S'Amjj  in  consetjuence  of  a  great  famine. 

**  Shuster  is  a  good  city  on  the  banks  of  the  river  jtfe- 
shrikan,^  in  the  district   of  Kusistan.     This  is  the  river  oo 

*   JJJ^i^  ji   cJj))  j)\    JU»-  J    s^jj    »^j\  yw    aL»-J    («-»1 


Juu 


^; 


AJlj\Out^     Jj^ 


jij      AM  l<AA>-       .UW       mksU      JmIj      i^      Jj^ 

*  This  iti  the  name  of  ibe  utitieiiJ  cftn&l,  orcjuioned,  ju  Mr  Kinneir  luyK,  (p.  SH.) 
by  the  eotisuuction  of  the  dyke  called  by  the  Pcraiui  author  Ihe  ^W/rriran :  it  dii- 
cha^^  its  waien  into  the  Ab-vaJ,  half  •  mile  from  the  |iUh  cMcA  Itumiektrl  by 
Mr  K.,  which  v.  Haminrt  tuke*  to  be  titc  »amc  with  one  rallal  Atker  Mokerrrw  by 
the  EaRtcni  geo(tni)>hcr«. 


On  the  Position  of  Susa. 


191 


I 


wiich  Sapor  built  the  Shadrewan  before  the  gate  of  the  city, 
because  il  h'es  on  a  hill,  and  the  water  does  not  come  up  to 
it-  He  built  ShuMer  with  stone  and  iron  pillars.  The  body 
of  Daniel  (|)eace  be  with  him)  was  formerly  at  Shuster.  The 
people  of  Shtta  who  were  afflitted  witli  a  famine  desired  the 
body  of  Dauiel  (peace  Ik*  with  him)  to  turn  away  the  famine. 
The  body  was  sent  to  them  to  iVA«*,  to  turn  uway  the  famine. 
They  hid  the  coffin  in  the  river,  and  the  elders  of  Shus 
swore  that  the  coffin  was  not  in  their  city-  After  this  they 
aaked  the  boys;  the  boys  said  that  tile  coffin  was  in  such 
a  place.  Wherefore  il  is  the  custom  to  hear  the  testimony 
of  boys.  The  glory  of  this  city  is  the  dyke  Skadreivan  on 
the  river  Me«hrikan:  its  wares  are  rich  stufl's  and  rice." 

To  this  is  added  an  extract  from  a  Turkish  geugrapliical 
work,  the  Jehannuma,  which,  though  it  does  nut  mention  the 
transfer,  yet  on  the  whole  coufirnis  the  statement  of  the  Persian 
author.  "  Daniel* s  Tomb  is  on  the  west  side  of  the  city 
{Shus)^  they  say  it  has  remained  there  ever  since  the  captivity 
in  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  At  tlie  time  of  tlie  (Moslem) 
conquest  a  coffin  was  found  which  was  taken  for  that  of  Daniel, 
and  was  brought  out  in  time  of  dearth  and  honoured  with 
prayers.  Abu  MusaElashari  made  a  vaulted  chamber  of  stone 
under  ground  by  the  bank  of  the  river  that  fioM's  by  the 
city,  in  which  he  deposited  the  coffin  and  turned  the  river 
of  Shus  over  it,  out  of  reverence,  that  the  body  of  a  j}rophet 
might  not  lie  in  the  hands  of  the  people.*"  The  same  Turkish 
author  in  mentioning  Shuster  notices  the  excellent  quality  of 
the  water  in  digesting  the  coarsest  food. 

Two  observations  of  v.  Uamnier  seem  after  this  to  set 
the  question  completely  at  rest :  "  In  the  first  place  the  river 
of  Suaa  can  only  be  liiat  which  flows  under  the  wails  of  the 
city,  and  not  another  flowing  several  miles  off  (as  the  Ab-Kul), 
because  Daniel  stood  at  the  gate  of  the  city  (vni.  S.)  by 
the  river  of  Ulai.  In  the  second  place  it  is  by  no  means 
uncertain  whether  Su«a  stood  on  the  eastern  or  western  bank 
of  the  Euteu«  (as  Mr  Kinneir  sup|)oses),  because  Alexander 
on  his  march  toward  the  east  arrives  first  at  the  Chonspes 
and  then  at  xSusa.  This  circumstance  has  been  clearly  pointed 
out  by  Hoeck,  to  prove  the  position  of  Susa  on  the  eastern 


19S 


On  the  Position  of  Suea, 


bank  of  the  KuleUH  or  Cftoaspes,  only  he  is  quite  wrong  in 
looking  for  this  river  in  the  Kerah  or  Karasu."" 

Lastly,  we  are  indebted  to  the  ingenious  author  for  a 
happy  conjecture,  which  removes  the  only  remaining  difficulty 
that  might  seem  to  leave  a  doubt  on  the  subject.  With  this 
we  shall  conclude  our  extracts. 

"The  five  authors  who  maintain  the  identity  of  Susa  «nd 
Shus  (Rennell,  Barbie  du  Bocage,  Sir  William  Ouscley,  Kin- 
neir,  and  Hoeck)  may  ask  their  five  opponents  (IVAnvillc, 
Hcrbclot,  Vincent,  Manncrt,  and  the  writer)  to  what  place 
the  vast  ruins  of  Shiui  correspond,  if  it  he  not  the  ancient 
Susaf  We  will  meet  this  question  with  another  which  in- 
volves an  answer  to  it.  Where  are  the  ruins  nf  the  great 
city  of  Elymais^  the  capital  of  the  province  of  the  same  name, 
which  conljiined  the  great  temple  A7ara,  mentioned  by  Strabo, 
Josephus,  and  Zonaras,'  dedicated  to  Venus  or  Diana  (Zaratis, 
Sohra,  or  Anaitis,  Anahid)  ?  where  are  they  to  be  looked 
for  but  here  in  the  centre  of  the  province  of  FJymais-,  which 
the  river  of  Shuster  se[utrated  from  Stutiana  ?  FAymais  was 
the  capital  of  the  province  Ktymais,  and  Sfisa  that  of  Uie 
province  Susinna ;  the  former  lay  on  the  eastern  hank  of  the 
Kerah,  the  latter  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Karowt.  Both 
were  celebrated  for  their  temple  of  Anaitis,  which  in  the 
former  city  was  called  after  the  other  name  of  the  goddess 
(Zaratis)  ra  '/Afta  or  Tci  "Al^apa.  By  an  oversight  which 
has  never  1>efore  been  noticed,  the  party  who  maintain  the 
identity  of  Swin  and  Shns  have  entirely  forgrjtten  the  capital 
of  Elymais,  and  have  attempted  to  transfer  the  capital  of 
Stmana  into  the  heart  of  Elymais.'" 

C.  T. 


^  Slrabo  Kvt.   1.  18}   Joseph.  Antii].  tx.  I;    Zonaims  iv.  30. 


ON  CERTAIN  TENSES  ATTRIHUTEU  To  TIIK 
GREEK  VERB. 


I 


I 


I 


NoTHiNt;  in  language  is  niort;  beautiful  and  pt'rlttl  in 
its  kind  than  the  Greek  verb.  Its  variefl  inflexionti,  as  ex- 
pressive in  signification  as  they  arc  euphonious  in  sound, 
furnish  us  with  means  uf  indicating  the  times,  circumstances, 
and  relations  of  actions,  with  a  reailiness  and  precision  not 
elsewhere  to  be  met  with.  And  when  we  consider  how  large 
a  proportion  these  constitute  of  the  subject  matter  of  discourse, 
nnd  how  it  is  the  most  difficult  task  of  Jaiiguage  to  give  them 
adequate  expression,  we  shall  be  able  to  estimate  the  real 
merit  of  this  transcendent  member  of  the  Greek  tongue,  and 
the  degree  in  which  it  alone  establishes  the  superiority  of  that 
language  above  all  others  known  and  stu(iied  among  us.  It 
is  not,  however,  the  design  uf  this  paper  to  illustrate  the  ex- 
cellence of  the  Greek  verb,  an  undertaking  which  could  not 
be  properly  accomplished  witliiii  a  small  space,  but  to  [Hjint 
out  what  are  ap])reheiided  tu  be  some  injurious  errots  which 
have  lung  prevailetl  in  itH  granmiatical  analysis,  and  by  which 
the  general  jH-rception  of  that  excellence  has  been  iu)|)eded. 
It  is  intended  to  prove  that  the  analysis  uf  the  Greek  verb, 
as  cumnionly  taught  in  uur  !>ehools  and  colleges,  has  not  yet 
attained  that  degree  of  simplicity  which  not  only  practical 
utility,  but  consistency  with  the  truth  itself  requires. 

The  mechanism  of  the  Greek  verb  is  certainly  artificial 
and  complicated  ;  as  much  so,  perhaps,  as  any  thing  in  human 
language.  Not  only  has  it  mure  tenses  than  the  verb  of  any 
other  European  language  either  ancient  or  modern,  but  each 
of  those  tenses  is  developetl  through  a  greater  variety  of  forms 
sustaining  the  function  of  the  several  moods  and  participles, 
and  these  participles  again  are  declined  with  a  fulness  quite 
peculiar.  In  all  this  richness  of  apparatus  it  surpasses  the 
Vol.  I.  No.  4.  U  b 


194 


On  certain  Tenses 


Latin,  a»  far  as  the  Latin  does  that  of  mocit  modern  tongues. 
Elaborate,  however,  as  the  Greek  verb  really  is»  it  has  been 
made  to  appear  complicated  beyond  the  reality,  by  the  de- 
fective manner  in  which  it  has  commonly  been  analysed.  It 
has  not  quite  ro  formidable  a  troop  of  tenses  as  it  is  ordi- 
narily made  to  display ;  nor  does  it  shoot  out  into  quite  so 
ample  and  luxuriant  a  tree,  as  sometimes  flourishes  in  tlmt 
solitary  picture  which  is  allowed  to  embellish  our  Greek 
grammars. 

To  deny  that  the  regular  Greek  verb  possesses  two  forms 
of  the  aorist  and  future,  or  any  distinct  form  at  all  for  a 
tense  called  the  perfect  middle,  will  to  some  readers  pro- 
bably appear  a  startling  paradox,  which  they  will  readily 
impute  to  ignorance  or  presumption.  But  others,  perhaps, 
will  feel  no  great  indisposition  to  believe  that  the  assertion 
may  not  be  far  from  the  truth.  They  may  have  become 
conscious,  from  their  own  observations,  of  those  facts  which 
in  effect  establish  it. 

But  Iwforc  going  farther,  lest  the  reader  should  be  indis- 
posed to  bestow  on  tlie  question  that  share  of  attention  which 
it  really  deserves,  it  may  be  well  to  advert  briefly  to  its  prac- 
tical importance,  and  this  will  be  found  to  be  by  no  means 
inconsiderable.  The  least  evil  of  the  present  system  is,  that 
the  student  has  to  commit  to  memory  a  much  longer  verb 
than  he  ought  to  hare.  Undoubtedly  the  length  and  com- 
plexity of  the  verb,  as  at  present  exiiibited,  is  felt  to  be  the 
most  serious  difliculty  in  attaining  a  knowledge  of  Greek 
grammar :  and  many  are  so  much  tliscouragcd  by  the  formi- 
dable appearance  of  the  tables  presented  t<i  tlium,  that  they 
never  undertake  the  task  with  sufficient  spirit  fairly  to  master 
it,  and  so  never  do  or  can  attain  a  sound  acquaintance  with 
the  language.  But  a  far  greater  evil  than  this,  which  after 
all  resolves  itself  into  the  necessity  of  a  little  additional  pains- 
taking, is  the  confusion  and  obscurity  in  whicli  the  entire  use 
of  the  verb  is  involved.  Fictitious  tenses  are  ascribed  to  the 
verb:  then  certain  uses  or  significations  are  assigned  to  these 
tenses :  for  instance,  it  is  attempted  to  define  the  proper  use 
of  the  second  aorist  as  distinct  from  the  first.  Now  it  is 
obvious,  that  such  significations  must  either  be  wholly  ima- 
ginary, in  which  case  the  labours  both  of  tutor  and  pupil  will 


tittrihuted  to  the  Greek   Verb. 


195 


l>e  mere  Quixotism,  or  they  must  he  borrowed  from  those  of 
the  real  teiist'H,  and  those  will  in  consequence  be  robbed  of 
a  part  of  that  range  of  use  which  in  truth  belongs  to  them. 
Hence  will  arise  one  or  other  of  two  extremes,  and  nothing 
is  more  common  than  to  meet  with  both  of  them  among  Greek 
Btudent-s.  In  the  one  case  iht-  sense  of  confusion  is  such  that 
the  student  comes  to  regard  three  or  four  tenses  as  nearly, 
if  not  quite,  cqnivaleut,  ami  such  as  it  is  but  lost  labour  to 
attempt  to  discriuiioate.  Thus  he  looks  ou  the  imperfect, 
the  two  aorists,  and  the  perfect,  to  be  all  pretty  much  of  the 
same  meaning;  as  tenses  thai  have  in  general  a  past  signi- 
fication, but  with  little  constancy  of  discrimination,  and  such 
as  may  be  substituted  for  one  another  without  material  error. 
Yet  what  sorry  scholarship  is  this !  Such  a  student  would 
have  |jerceivcd  no  impropriety  had  Pilate's  answer,  instead 
o  yeypa^a,  yeypa<pa,  been  o  eypa^a^  €ypa\j/a,  or  o  eypa- 
bov^  €yp<i<pov.  Such  a  student  will  not  be  prepared  to  ob- 
»er*'e  that  the  common  rendering  of  the  words  awitrXvvav  ra 
^iKTvat  (Luc.  V.  2)  *'  they  tcere  washing  tlieir  nets,"  is  plainly 
inadmissible.  On  the  other  hand  the  beautiful  propriety, 
with  wliich  that  tense,  which  is  peculiar  to  the  Greek  verb, 
is  selected  in  such  a  passage  as  the  following,  will  be  uuper- 
ceived  by  him. 

Kai  6tf  covpa  fffffiprc  remv,  xat  trrrapra  XeKvi^ai- 
Only  the  student  who  has  been  accustomed  to  discriminate 
the  use  of  the  tenses  with  accuracy,  will  observe  that  the 
poet  could  not  here  witli  equal  propriety  have  employed  the 
aorist  or  imperfect,  because  he  intends  to  describe  the  present 
condition  of  the  spars  and  rigging ;  and  yet  that  he  could  not 
have  used  the  present  tense,  because  that  would  have  repre- 
sented the  decay  as  in  progress,  rather  than  as  complete; 
that  they  were  rotting  not  rotten.  Thus  neither  in  inter- 
pretmg  the  sense,  nor  enjoying  the  beauty  of  Greek,  will  he 
possess  either  the  discrimination  or  the  relish  of  a  sound 
scholar.  But  if  such  be  the  case  when  lie  is  reading,  how 
much  worse  will  it  Ije  when  he  is  writing  Greek  :  then  in- 
deed he  makes  rare  work  of  it :  he  writes  a  Greek  comedy 
without  intending  it,  and  gives  us  a  new  application  for  the 
old  words  teviportt  jnutantui',  such  an  he  himself  is  little 
aware  of 


19fi 


On  rertain   Tentes 


The  opposite  evil  arising  from  the  exhibition  of  fictitious 
teases,  is  tliat  of  lalwur  lost  in  excessive  and  fanciful  refine- 
ment. Every  student  ia  not  content  to  go  on  regularly  con- 
jugating hia  Greek  verbs  with  two  futures  and  two  aorists, 
without  endeavouring  to  obtain  some  idea  of  that  difterence 
which,  he  naturally  fiupposes,  must  exist  in  the  force  or 
meaning  of  these  duplicate  tenses,  and  of  the  propriety 
which  sliould  regulate  their  use.  It  is  true,  ndther  his  tutor 
nor  his  grammar  are  in  general  likely  to  give  him  any  satis- 
factory information  on  this  point ;  but  notwithstanding  the 
intelligent  and  active-minded  youth  will  be  busy  with  his 
enquiries.  Perchance  he  is  engaged  in  composing  a  piece  of 
Greek  prose,  and  he  has  a  verb  to  render  which  he  supposes 
should  be  expressed  by  one  of  the  aorists:  he  will  then  be 
endeavouring  to  determine  which  of  the  two  will  be  most 
suitable.  Nor  is  this  to  be  wondered  al,  when  we  remember 
that  liie  whole  course  of  his  Greek  instruction  has  tended 
to  impress  him  with  the  opinion  that  both  these  tenses  are 
the  proper  and  ordinary  complement  of  the  regular  Greek 
verb.  If  the  contrary  opinion,  now  to  lie  advocated,  be 
correct,  if  the  common  form  of  the  Greek  verb  no  more 
presents  two  aorists  or  two  futures,  than  it  does  two  presents 
or  imjierfects;  how  misernbty  must  he  be  misspending  his 
time  aud  industry  I 

And  thus  we  arc  brought  lo  the  principal  question,  that 
of  the  existence  of  the  bt-fore  mentioned  lenses  in  the  regular 
Greek  verb.  I  assert,  and  shall  nltempt  to  prove,  that  tliey 
do  not  exist ;  that  they  are  mere  grammatical  fictions ;  in 
short,  that  occasional  redundancies,  or  anomalies  of  formation* 
have  been  preposterously   magnitietl  into  distinct  tenses. 

I  may  probably  assume,  with  the  assent  of  most  readers, 
that  the  taws  and  structure  of  a  language  are  to  be  deduced 
frtim  its  prevailing  usage,  and  that  in  the  present  case,  if  it 
he  the  fact  that  the  vast  majority  of  Greek  verbs  are  desti- 
tute of  the  tenses  in  question,  this  icnse  ought  then  to  be 
excluded  from  the  models  of  regular  declension.  Because  a 
few  verbs,  tlirough  accidental  retlundancy  of  formation,  pre- 
sent duplicate'  forms  of  sonic  uf  their  tenses,  it  surely  cannot 
he  right  to  nprcscnt  this  as  the  general  law  of  the  language, 
or  to  exhibit    thont  in   ihosc  examples  according  tn  which  (he 


attributed  to  the  Greek  Verb, 


W 


stutU'nl  iiaturaUv  sii|)|K>!!'es  tliat  all  regular  verbs  are  to  be 
inflected. 

Now  in  order  lo  decide  the  question  proposed,  we  must 
put  it  upon  each  of  the  several  tenses  distinctly.  Let  us 
first  take  the  case  of  what  is  called  the  second  aorist  active, 
which  is  probably  the  strongest  of  all  for  those  who  would 
defend  the  existing  system.  Here  the  facts  of  the  case 
would  seem  to  be  briefly  these.  Two  modes  of  forming  the 
common  past  or  historical  tense  got  early  into  use  in  Greece: 
the  one  gave  that  which  we  call  the  first,  the  other  that  which 
we  call  the  second  aorist.  The  former  from  its  origin  was 
truly  a  distinct  tense,  having  a  system  of  terminations  alto- 
gether peculiar  to  itself;  but  the  latter  is  little  else  than 
a  blight  modification  of  the  imperfect.  Usage  early  declared 
itself  in  favour  of  the  former;  and  at  the  period  wiien  Greek 
literature  began,  the  second  form  obtained  only  in  a  limited 
number  of  the  more  primitive  verbs;  while  every  verb  of  more 
recent  and  derivative  formation  exhibited  the  first  exclusively. 
In  a  very  few  verbs  only  are  both  forms  to  be  found;  and 
even  in  these  the  duplicates  for  the  most  part  belong  to  dif- 
ferent dialects,  ages,  or  styles.  In  import  these  two  forms  uf 
the  aurist  never  drifered;  but  this  it  would  be  superfluous  to 
attempt  to  prove,  because  I  presume  that  every  competent 
judge  will   at  once  admit   it. 

We  may  find  a  satisfactory  illustration  of  this  matter  in 
our  own  language.  In  English  also  there  are  two  originally 
distinct  modes  of  forming  the  common  past  tense:  the  first 
by  adding  the  syllable  ed,  as  in  I  killed :  the  otlier,  chiefly  by 
certain  changes  in  the  vowels,  as  in  /  wrote^  J  sau\  I  knetVy 
J  ran  ;  and  many  others.  Let  the  reader  call  the  former 
and  regular  form  the  first  aorist,  and  the  latter  the  second, 
and  he  will  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  amount  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  those  tenses  in  Greek.  Tlie  form  pTin^a  in 
Greek  is  w^iat  /  killed  is  in  English,  that  is,  the  regular 
form  of  the  past  tense,  which  obtains  in  the  vast  majority 
of  verbs:  the  form  tXaf^ofi  on  the  other  hand,  is  altogether 
analogous  to  /  tonk^  or  /  «arr,  acknowledged  by  all  gram- 
marians not  as  a  5LTond  or  distinct  preterite,  but  as  an 
instance  nf  irregular  variety  of  formation  obtaining  in  cer- 
lAin   verbs. 


198 


On  certain   Tenses 


But  some  will  probably  deem  it  an  objection  to  the  view 
here  taken,  that  there  are  verbs  in  Greek, — mnny,  they  per- 
haps 8uppose,»-)a  wliich  both  forms  of  the  aoriat  are  in  use 
together.  1  admit  that  a  few  instances  of  this  kind  do  occur ; 
but  even  in  this  point  wc  shall  find  that  the  analogy  with 
our  own  language  still  holds  good.  Without  rummaging  in 
old  authors,  we  meet  witli  many  instances  in  which  English 
verbs  retain  both  forms  of  the  preterite.  Thus,  for  example, 
we  may  say,  /  hanged,  or  /  hting;  I  chidy  or  /  chode;  I 
spit,  or  I  spat;  I  climbed,  or  /  clomh;  I  awaked^  or  / 
awoke ;  I  cleft,  I  clave,  or  /  clove ;  and  a  score  of  others. 
Except  in  their  greater  abundance,  wherein  do  these  differ 
from  the  analogous  duplicate  forms  of  the  Greek  uorist,  such 
as  €KT€tya  and  exravov,  I  killed;  eruxj/a  and  eTvwov,  I 
ttruck ;  €Od^.j^rfaa  and  e-raipotf,  I  was  astonished?  Such 
duplicates  in  Greek  are  extremely  rare:  probably  there  is 
not  one  Greek  verb  in  five  hundred  in  which  they  can  be 
met  with.  The  form  improperly  called  the  second  aorist  is, 
indeed,  common  enough;  but  then  where  it  exists,  that  of 
the  first  aorist  is  almost  always  wanting.  We  have  evpov, 
tXafiov,  iioovt  ^yayov,  eXtwoVf  e^pafiovk  but  the  regidar  form 
is  as  much  a  nonentity  in  these  verbs,  as  it  is  in  the  English 
verbs,  /  found,  I  took,  I  saw,  J  led,  I  left,  I  ran.  The 
first  aorist  in  these  would  be  sheer  vulgarity ;  it  would  be 
parallel   to  /  JindeH,  I  takedy  I  seed. 

Now  if  the  circumstances  of  the  Greek  and  Engliah,  in 
regard  to  these  two  tenses,  are  so  precisely  parallel,  a  simple 
and  obvious  enquiry  arises.  Which  are  in  the  right,  the  Greek 
grammarians  or  our  own?  For  either  ours  must  be  wrong  in 
not  having  fitted  up  for  our  verb  the  framework  of  a  first  and 
second  preterite,  teaching  the  pupils  to  say,  1st  pret.  landed, 
ad  pret.  /  found;  Ist  pret.  I  glided,  2d  pret.  I  glade ;  or  the 
others  must  be  so  in  teaching  the  learner  to  imagine  two  aorists 
for  «fp(V/rto,  as  aor.  1.  cvprjffQ,  aor.  2.  evpov;  or  for  aVot/cu, 
as  aor.  1.  j^Koutra,  aor.  S.  ijKoov.  It  is  a  custom  with  many 
masters,  and  on  a  better  system  it  would  be  a  good  one,  to  ex- 
ercise their  pupils  in  conjugating  a  variety  of  verbs,  according 
to  their  Greek  trees,  as  they  are  called.  How  hard  it  is  to 
find  verbs  which  can  with  any  propriety  he  subjected  to  this 
process,  is  dniiblless  well  known  to  all  such  masters ;  and  to 


attributed  to  the.  Greek  Verb. 


109 


realize  both  u  first  and  sccomi  aorist  is  assuredly  not  one  of 
their  leattt  difticutties.  In  short,  it  is  the  plain  truth  in  point 
of  fact,  and  it  is  inBnitely  more  convenient  in  point  of  practice, 
to  say  that  the  Greek  verb  has  but  one  aorist  active:  that 
aorist,  when  regular,  following  tiie  model  cTi/^jl/a;  but  being 
sometimes  formed  less  regularly  in  another  manner,  like  |\a- 
l^v\  and  that  now  and  then,  in  the  variety  of  dialects  and 
styles,  two  forms  appear  in  the  same  verb,  as  in  en-eicra  and 
emOoV.  one  of  these  however,  as  in  this  instance  eireiaa, 
being  that  in  ordinary  use;  the  other  rare,  anomalous,  and 
nearly  obsolete. 

We  ought  next  to  consider  the  twise  c^led  the  second 
future:  but  really  to  attempt  to  demolish  this  would  be  merely 
combating  with  a  man  of  straw.  Where  is  it,  or  what  is  it  ? 
"  De  non  apparentibus,  et  de  non  existentibus  eadein  est  ratio," 
When  a  fair  specimen  of  the  second  future  active  is  produced, 
it  will  be  time  enough  to  attack  it.  In  the  mean  time  I  con- 
fess that  I  am  totally  unacquainted  with  it,  except  in  the  recol- 
lections of  my  grammar.  It  is  true  indeed,  that  the  form 
ascribed  to  this  tense  is  very  common,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the 
regular  and  only  future  of  that  class  of  verbs  which  has  a 
liquid  consonant  before  the  Bnal  u»;  and  in  some  others  it  is 
formed  by  contraction,  as  eXw  for  eXaawj  from  eXavvta.  But 
here,  droll  to  say,  our  grammarians,  as  if  determined  that  this 
unfortunate  tense  should  never  be  realized,  have  actually 
cashiered  it  of  its  proper  title,  and  given  its  form  the  name  of 
the  first  future.  The  simple  fact  appears  to  be,  that  the  exist- 
ence of  two  active  futures  in  the  Greek  verb  is  one  of  the 
rarest  phenomena  in  the  language. 

The  circumstances  of  the  so  called  .second  aorist  and  second 
future  middle  are  so  similar  to  those  of  their  namesakes  in  the 
active  voice,  that  it  would  be  tedious  to  dwell  on  them.  The 
future  and  aorist  middle  have  undoubtedly  two  forms,  corres- 
ponding with  those  of  the  same  tenses  in  the  active  voice,  from 
which  they  are  derived.  The  common  and  regular  forms  are 
such  as  Xuao/iah  eXvarautji'i  and,  where  these  are  in  use,  we 
rarely  find  any  others:  but  occasionally  we  encounter  such 
forms  as  oXovfiai,  txiXofiriv,  which  then  supersede  the  regular 
ones. 

On  that  modification  of  the  perfect  active,  which  is  com- 


300 


On  rerfain    Tensen 


niuiilv  represemwl  as  forniing  a  tlisiinct  teiittc,  inider  tin*  tilk' 
ufllie  perfett  middle,  so  much  has  Ix-en  written,  that  thf  faclii 
respecting  it  are  pretty  well  ascertained.  No  one  at  present, 
UKMJerately  an)uainietl  with  the  subject,  can  be  unaware  that 
this  supposed  lense  is  of  very  rare  wcurrcnce,  so  as  to  have  fai' 
more  the  character  of  an  occasional  redundancy  than  of  a  regu- 
lar formation.  In  fact,  when  the  preterite  exists  in  this  parti- 
cular form,  it  very  rarely  exists  in  the  same  verb  in  any  other 
form :  and  where  two  forms  do  occur,  it  will  generally  be  found 
that  the  one  did  not  come  into  use  till  the  other  was  j^rowing 
obsolete.  It  is  true,  that  those  peculiarilies  of  furmatiuu  which 
are  considered  as  characteristic  of  the  jierfect  middle,  are 
oftenest  found  in  verbs  of  a  neuter  or  reflex,  si^^nilieiitiun  ;  and 
this  may  be  regarded  by  some  as  evidence  of  its  beii>g  a  distinct 
tense.  But  giving  the  utmost  weight  to  this  consideration, 
it  can  only  ]>rove  that  in  verbs  of  that  kind  the  perfect  afl'ects 
this  character,  and  not  that  there  are  two  distinct  j)erft;cts  ; 
especially  when  it  is  considered,  that  the  features  by  which  the 
middle  form  is  discriminated,  are  inconsiderable  and  uncertain. 
But  in  fact,  though  what  is  called  the  middle  form  has  un- 
doubtedly some  degree  of  alliance  with  a  neuter  sense,  this 
alliance  is  very  far  from  constant.  This  form  has  often  a  truly 
active  and  transitive  signification,  n^  for  example  \i\oina  I 
/lave  iefi-i  SKTova  I  have  kiUed;  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
form  considered  as  active  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  a 
neuter  or  reflex  8<.nse,  as  in  KCKfijjKa  I  om  weary^  jiefirfKa  I  am 
gone,  7re<pvKa  I  am  produced,  eartjKa  J  stand,  fiefievrfKa  / 
remain,  rjfiapnjKa  I  have  erred,  ccr^tiKa  I  am  e^thifC'tinhed, 
l^fHtuKa  I  have  livedo  Te9vt}Ka  /  am  dead.  These  instances, 
which  might  be  easily  multiplied,  are  surely  sufficient  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  good  ground  for  assigning  to  either  of  these 
forms  of  the  perfect  any  dctenninate  cast  of  sign ifi cation, 
whether  it  be  active  or  neuter.  Some  preference  of  what  is 
called  the  middle  form  for  the  neuter  sense  is  the  utmost  that 
can  with  truth  be  maintained.  In  a  few  instances  txith  the 
forms  certainly  do  exist,  and  with  a  characteristic  ditTerence  of 
signification,  as  oXwXeicrx  /  have  destrmfed  and  oXwXn  /  ant 
undone-,  ire-treuca  I  have  persuaded,  and  ireiroiBa  I  am  conji- 
dent :  in  others  the  two  forms  occur  indeed,  but  with  little 
discrimination  in  sense,  as  weirpa^a  and  vewftaya,  ^e^txa  and 


aitrihuted  to  the  Greek  Verb. 


201 


^eSta.  If  in  the  whole  range  of  the  Greek  language  some 
hiilf  a  dozen  instances  of  a  distinct  perfect  middle  can  be  found, 
in  addition  to  the  perfect  active,  surely  this  is  no  adequate 
ground  for  representing  these  two  tenses  as  the  proper  and 
regular  complement  of  the  verb,  unless  it  he  proper  to  con- 
found the  rule  with  the  exception. 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  passive  tenses. 
It  is  undoubtedly  much  easier  to  produce  duplicates  here, 
than  either  in  the  active  form  or  the  middle.  Examples  such  as 
aWa^Oijvai  and  aWayttvaty  ffuWey^Qrivai  and  ervWeyiivat,  are 
by  no  mean!i  scarce,  even  among  the  Attic  prose-writers.  But 
in  the  6rst  place  the  difference  of  formation  is  in  these  cases 
slight,  not  at  all  affecting  the  terminations;  and  secondly 
there  is  not  a  shadow  of  ground  for  supposing  that  these  two 
forms  were  used  as  distinct  tenses,  that  is,  with  any  difference 
of  signification :  on  the  contrary  it  is  evident  that  they 
were  perfectly  equivalent,  and  U8e<l,  as  regarded  their  signifi- 
cation, with  absolute  indifference;  in  short  they  were  mere 
varieties  of  formation,  which,  in  verbs  of  a  certain  description, 
got  into  use  for  one  and  the  same  tense.  This  is  evident  from 
the  circumstance,  that  hardly  any  author  will  be  foimd  using 
more  than  one  of  these  forms  in  the  name  verb:  the  fashion, 
so  to  speak,  by  which  a  preference  was  given  to  one  or  the 
other,  having  prevailed  at  different  times  and  places.  More- 
over the  proportion  of  verbs  in  which  even  tliis,  the  most 
numerous,  species  of  duplicates  obtain,  is  very  limited,  Iwing 
confined  almost  entirely  to  a  portion  of  those  in  which  labial 
or  guttural  consonants  precede  the  final  to.  It  is  only  there- 
fore, at  most,  to  verbs  of  this  particular  class  that  any  rule 
for  their  formation  should  extend.  But  the  fnct  is,  that, 
although  writers  of  different  ages  and  dialects  formed  these 
tenses  with  some  variety,  yet  any  given  writer  seldom  felt  him- 
self at  liberty  to  use  more  than  a  single  form.  To  revert  once 
mure  to  our  own  language,  the  case  is  simply  the  same  as 
with  /  spake  and  /  spoke^  I  brake  and  /  broke^  I  catched 
and  /  caughfy  where  an  older  and  a  newer  form  occur  in 
writers  of  different  ages  or  styles,  but  still  most  strictly  as 
representatives  of  the  same  tense.  To  found  on  such  ano- 
malies a  superfluous  complexity  in  the  general  mechanism  of 
a  language,  and  especially  to  introduce  such  complexity  into 
Vol.  II.  No.  4.  Cc 


902 


On  certain    Tenses 


elementary  works,  is  at  least  but  a  display  uf  miscliievous  in- 
genuity. 

Tilt*  following  quotation  frum  Mntlliiit's  elaborate  work  on 
Greek  graininur  is  adduced  un  n  eonriruiaiion  of  the  foregoing 
Ktatenients.  After  giving  an  account  uf  the  furiuation  of  the 
ten!>c8,  he  adds,  p.  '2i4;  **  There  is  no  single  verb  which 
has  all  tlifse  tenses  that  can  regularly  be  derived  from  it. 
It  is  very  seldom  that  a  verb  has  the  two  tenses,  aor.  1.  and 
aor.  H.  active,  as  aTrr/'y'yfiXa  and  a-n^tiyyeXovi  the  aor.  I.  and 
2  pass,  and  perf.  \  and  perf.  Si  (middle)  at  tlie  same  time. 
When  it  has  these  tenses,  they  connuouly  belong  to  two  dif- 
ferent dialects,  or  two  different  ages  of  a  dialect,  as  ttrSov 
only  in  the  old  Ionic,  eTreicra  in  Attic  and  the  rest :  awviK- 
Xdx^n^t  fTwaXeyOrfv  in  the  older  Attic  dialect,  aivfjWaytiv^ 
trvveXeyn*'  ^^  the  new ;  or  they  have  different  si  gni  Beat  ions,  as 
ire-rrpax'^  in  an  active  sense,  TreV/jaya  in  a  neuter  sense." 

The  conclusion  from  the  foregoing  observations  is,  that 
the  common  analysis  of  the  Greek  verb,  which  ascri1>es  to 
it  a  second  future,  a  second  oorist,  and  a  perfect  nnddl^,  as 
appertaining  to  its  regular  formation,  is  false  and  wrong;  there 
being,  in  fact,  no  such  tenses  whatever,  unless  occasional  re- 
dundancies, or  irregularities  of  formation,  are  to  be  dignified 
with  that  title.  Nor  is  this  merely  a  speculative  error,  but 
one  that  intro<Iuc«8  much  difficulty,  confusion,  and  even  ulti- 
mate failure  in  sound  Greek  scholarship,  into  our  schools  and 
colleges :  and  it  ought  therefore  to  excite  the  serious  attention 
of  those  who  superintend  the  instruction  of  youth  in  this  im> 
portant  and  interesting  branch  of  learning. 

A  charge  of  prt^sumption  may  [jcrhaps  be  thought  to  lie  a 
gainst  me  for  advancing  such  propositions  in  the  face  of  the 
venerable  sanctions  which  consecrate  the  prevailing  system. 
I  readily  confess,  that  I  make  nut  the  sliglitcst  pretension  to 
vie  in  point  of  Hellenic  lore  with  a  hundred  names  by  whom 
that  system  has,  at  least,  not  been  blamed.  My  apology  is 
this:  The  present  question  does  not  appear  to  be  one  of  pro- 
found and  e.vquisite  scholarship.  Whether  a  language  has,  or 
has  not,  certain  tenses,  in  the  common  and  regular  declension 
of  its  verbs,  must  be  a  |joint  uu  which  even  an  ordinary  scholar 
may  feel  himself  entitled  to  an  opinion  ;  nay,  on  which  he  is 
as  competent  to  form  one  as  though  he  had  the  honour  to  be 


ottr'tbnted  to  the  Greek  Verb. 


203 


numbered  among  the  ^aiits  of  learning.  After  all,  it  is  not 
a  question  of  authority  hut  of  fact.  Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  a 
fact,  that  the  immense  majority  of  Greek  verbs  are  destitute  of 
these  duplicate  tenses?  Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  a  fact,  that  in  the 
few  instances  where  they  ilo  occur,  they  arc  used,  not  as  distinct 
tenses,  having  each  its  proper  signification,  but  merely  as 
various  modes  in  which  the  force  of  one  and  the  same  tense 
has  been  expressed  by  different  writers  or  possihlv,  even  by 
the  same  writer  at  different  times,  by  the  same  kind  of  caprice 
which  may  lead  an  English  author  to  use  /  hanged  in  one  page, 
and  /  hun^  in  tlie  next?  Can  any  valid  exception  be  taken 
to  the  analogy  which  has  been  jwinteil  out,  in  respect  of  these 
duplicates,  between  the  Greek  language  and  our  own?  And  is 
it,  or  is  it  not,  a  just  and  important  practical  infereiife,  that 
the  models  exhibited  for  the  declension  of  the  regular  Greek 
■?erb  ouglu  to  be  retrenched  of  these  perplexing  and  super- 
fluous anomalies  ? 

Let  these  points  be  but  fairly  examined,  and  the  light  of 
candid  investigation  thrown  on  tlieni,  and,  if  I  am  found 
wrong,  I  shall  be  ready  to  submit  to  such  chastisement  as 
my  error  may  deserve. 

Kf  0€  <paei  Kai  oXecfrov, 

T.  F.  B. 


Is  inserting  the  foregoing  article  the  editors  have  been 
in  some  measure  influenced  by  one  or  two  secondary  motives. 
It  will  probably  strike  many  of  our  readers  that  they  have 
long  been  familiar  with  most  of  the  assertions  here  brought 
forward  under  nn  apparent  notion  that  they  are  original. 
But  in  the  first  platx-  even  after  a  discovery  has  already  been 
establisht  in  public  opinion  on  the  most  Batisfactory  evidence, 
it  may  often  hv  a  matter,  not  merely  of  idle  curiosity,  but 
of  no  little  speculative  interest,  to  observe  how  the  same 
or  similar  conclusions  have  l)een  attained  to  independently 
by  others,  who  have  betm  following  out  their  own  thoughts 
in    the    more    secjucstired    paths    of  literature,    and    who,    as 


204 


On  certain   Tenses. 


they  have  come  ujkjii  the  truth  from  different  points  of 
■view,  will  probably  have  seen  some  things  in  different  lights. 
Besides  in  the  present  iuRtancc  the  article  itself  clearly  shewB 
that  even  those  propositions  in  it  which  may  already  have 
received  the  assent  of  the  learned,  are  by  no  means  gene- 
rally notorious  even  to  the  diligent  students  of  the  ancient 
langfuages  in  England :  and  as  the  being  aware  of  ones 
ignorance  is  alwavs  a  help  at  least  toward  getting  rid  of 
it,  a  good  purpose  may  be  served  by  anything  which  re- 
minds us  how  much  still  remains  t(»  be  done  before  even 
our  simplest  elementary  knowledge  of  the  Greek  language 
can  be  raised  to  the  level  at  which  in  these  days  it  ought 
to  be.  After  all  that  has  been  written,  after  all  the  subtilty 
and  erudition  that  have  been  displayed  by  our  own  scholars 
an  well  as  those  of  Germany  in  unravelling  the  perplexities 
of  the  ancient  languages,  the  grammars  which  are  taught  in 
some  of  imr  princtj>al  public  schools  are  still,  with  very 
slight  changes,  the  same  as  they  were  some  two  hundre<l 
years  ago.  Hardly  one  obsolete  and  expliKled  errour  has 
been  expunged  from  them :  hardly  one  of  the  observations 
by  which  light  lias  since  been  thrown  upon  the  analogies 
regulating  either  the  forms  or  the  combinations  of  words, 
has  been  incorporated  in  them ;  Busby  and  Lily  are  held 
to  be  infallible  ;  or  at  all  events  it  must  be  deemed  inde- 
corous that  boys  sliould  know  more  than  Busby  and  Lily 
could  have  taught  them.  Hence  one  of  the  first  tasks  that 
a  lad,  who  has  a  taste  for  classical  studies,  lias  to  go  through 
on  leaving  school,  is  to  unlearn  a  great  part  of  what  he 
has  been  learning  there:  and  it  is  fortunate  if  this  process 
do  not  convert  his  taste  into  a  distaste.  With  such  pecu- 
liar felicity  too  are  those  grammars  constructed,  so  much  care 
is  taken  to  keep  at  a  respectful  distance  from  everything  like 
a  principle,  such  dead  hedges  are  they  of  arbitrary  rules 
broken  down  at  every  other  step  by  a  crowd  of  exceptions, 
that  almost  all  those  advantages  are  lost,  which  render  the 
study  of  grammar  better  fitted  perhaps  than  any  other  for 
training  the  youthful  understanding  to  discern  the  latent 
operation  of  general  laws  in  the  concrete  forms  of  things. 
But  where  the  seed  is  cankered,  it  can  never  produce  a  strong 
and  healthy  plant :   in  order  therefore  to  promote  the  growth 


205 


and  spread  of  clawiical  learning  iu  England,  it  is  al)ove  all 
things  requisite  that  the  elementtt  of  the  ancient  languages 
should  be  taught  according  to  a  system  more  in  harmony 
with  their  real  nature. 

As  to  the  particular  topics  discust  in  the  foregoing  pages, 
it  must  }>e  ohserved  that  they  do  not  by  any  means  stand 
all  on  the  same  footing.  That  there  was  no  such  tense 
in  the  Greek  language  as  a  second  future  active  or  middle, 
and  that  such  futures  were  sheer  fictions  deviseil  by  gram- 
marians, for  the  sake  of  symmetry,  in  order  that  the  second 
aorist  might  be  made  to  come  from  a  second  future,  like  the 
first  aorist  from  the  first  future,  has  been  repeatedly  main- 
tained by  scholars,  at  least  since  Dawes  in  his  usual  tone 
of  confidence  asserted,  pace  ^rmnmaticorum  in  me  praesfan- 
dum  reciplo  fitturum  eeciwdutu  farmae  vei  activae  vel  mediae 
in  Graeco  aertnone  nusquam  reperiri.  The  same  doctrine 
appears  to  have  been  held  by  some  of  the  Greek  granimru 
rians  themselves,  as  we  learn  from  a  fragment  of  Chccro- 
boscus  quoted  by  Buttmann  from  Ikkker's  Anecdote,  p.  i^yo, 
where  wc  read  that  Herodian  said,  no  instance  could  be 
brought  forward  of  a  second  future  active  in  use,  and  that 
the  instances  citetl  by  Apollonius  were  either  fabricated  by 
hiui, — such  as  <pvyw,  ^pafiw,  tujt^^  which  were  never  em- 
ployee] by  any  ancient  writer,. — or  were  in  fact  present  tenses 
with  a  future  signification.  Indeed  the  instances  of  futures 
fashioned  according  to  the  rules  laid  down  for  the  second 
future  are  so  exceedingly  rare — barring  such  as  come  from 
verbs  having  a  liquid  for  their  characteristic  letter,  all  of 
which  form  their  futures  after  this  manner,  in  consequence 
oF  the  harshness  the  Greek  ear  seems  to  have  found  in  a 
sibilant  follo^ving  a  liquid,  as  appears  for  instance  from  the 
change  of  Ti6ev^  into  rtOeU,  of  }\€yov(Tt  into  XeYu^ff't  "f  ^f- 
yovca  into  \eyuo<Ta%  of  autrrfv  into  apptft't  and  the  like,  ana- 
logous to  the  French  change  of  oeiifn  inU)  yend\  tiyenU  into 
ayeux — that  they  assuredly  do  not  afford  an  adequate  ground 
for  including  such  a  tense  in  the  systematic  complement  of 
the  Greek  verb.  Chneroboscus  cites  NciTaxXiw  fnmi  Enpulis : 
and  we  find  eKveiu  in  the  Acts,  ii.  17^  and  in  Jeremiah,  vi. 
II.  The  latter  at  all  events  is  nothing  more  than  on  Alex- 
aiidrian  corruption  of  the  Altic  future  6«c;(('w,  (see  Elmsley^s 


206 


On  certain  Tenses 


Review  of  IIermnnn*'s  Suppliccs,  on  v.  772),  even  if  we  nre 
not  warranted  in  introducing  eVye'cu  into  the  text.  So  that 
a  single  fragment  of  a  comic  poet  is  all  that  can  now  be 
adduced  in  behalf  of  a  second  future  active.  A  little  better 
show  can  tndce<i  be  made  in  favour  of  the  second  future 
middle:  but  that  is  all.  The  Attic  future  of  fiaj^ofiai  is 
fLu^oiffiat^  that  of  TriTTTty  Treaovfjiai-,  that  of  KaOc^ofxai  Ka^f- 
Covfiat:  TTtovficu  is  used  by  the  later  Greek  writers,  tskov- 
fieu  in  the  hymn  to  Venus,  ftaOovfim  in  a  passage  of  Theo- 
critus. It  is  possible  that  otlier  similar  forms,  such  as 
XajioZfiai^  Ttr^ovfxcUy  iXOoufxaij  may  have  been  found  in 
particular  dialects:  but  unless,  like  Buttniann,  we  give  the 
name  of  second  futures  to  the  ordinary  futures  of  verbs  in 
Xtt>,  Mu?,  vol,  pw — which  from  their  connexion  with  the  first 
aorist  are  called  first  futures  by  the  old  grammarians — the 
few  instances  just  enumerated  are  unquestionably  insufficient 
to  shew  that  Greek  verbs,  generally  fii>eaking,  had  any  such 
ten.se.  Besides  it  is  pretty  certain  that  the  futures  in  w 
and  ovnni  arc  not  independent  forms,  but  merely  contracted 
modifications  of  those  in  aw  and  ao^ai :  thus  there  is 
scarcely  more  reason  for  dignifying  them  with  the  name  of 
a  distinct  tense,  than  for  calling  ^ioto  a  second  genitive. 
Hence  there  do  not  seem  to  he  any  strong  reasons  for  hesi- 
tating to  adopt  the  opinion  pronounced  by  the  editor  of  the 
translation  of  Matthias's  Grammar,  that  *'  the  second  future 
ought  to  be  expunged  from  the  common  school-grammars:'" 
and  thus  it  has  been  left  out  for  example  in  that  publisht 
by  Dr  Russell  for  the  use  of  the  Charterhouse  school.  It 
is  true  that  in  grammar,  as  in  other  matters,  there  is  always 
Bome  inconvenience  attending  a  departure  from  any  received 
usage.  But  when  a  law,  like  tlial  allowing  the  wager  of  bat- 
tle, is  become  a  dead  letter,  and  the  recollection  of  it  is  only 
revived  by  the  inconvenience  resulting  from  an  appeal  to  it 
in  a  particular  instance,  tlie  most  cautious  legislator  need  not 
scruple  al>out  rescinding  it :  and  such  is  just  the  case  with 
the  second  future,  of  which  we  are  seldom  reminded,  except 
when  Mome  ignorant  criti4'  tries  to  defend  a  corrupt  reading 
or  un  erroneous  interpretation  by  nutans  iif  il.  In  fact,  with 
reference  to  the  actual  state  of  things,  Buttnianirs  practice 
of  calling  rcfiva  and  (TTeXcu   second  futures  Is  a  much   wider 


aUribuled  to  the  Greek    Verb. 


207 


deviation  from  common  usage  than  it  would  be  to  eraxe  the 
tense  altogether. 

On  the  other    liand    the    second  aorist  has   much    better 
ground    to   stand   on.      The   instances   of   it   are   numerous; 
and  it  is  a  tense  of  perpetual  occurrence.     It  has  been  ro- 
markt  indeed  by  others,  as  it  is  by  our  correspondent,  that 
this    tense  is   not  commonly  found  except  in  verbs  the  first 
aorist  of  which  was  not  in  use-     Solet  enim  ferme  (says  Her- 
mann,  dc   Kmcnd.    Hat.    Gr.    Gram.   p.  'iUi)   in  iin  ma,innte 
u^ferhis  secnndi  noristi  usuh  reqniri,  fjitnrtim  jyriviVH  aorhtun 
propter  molestiorem  pronuwiationem   iif^lcvtuH  ftiit.     Yet  a 
vrriter   in   the   former    volume  of  this  Museum  (p.  239)  has 
enumerated   several   verlis^   both  the  aorists  of  which   are  to 
be   met   with  even  iu    the   tragedians   and    Aristophanes;   and 
the   number   might  be   considerably  enlarged,    if   the   research 
were  carried   tlirougti  tlie  whole  range  of  llie  classical  writers. 
It  would   be    well  if  some    sclioLar    would   do   so,   and   make 
out  a  complete  list  of  the  Greek   verbs  the  second  aorist  of 
which  is  anywhere  found,  distinguishing  all  those  auiong  them 
which    had   a  first   aorist  along  with  it^   and   pointing  out   iu 
what  cases  the  tvo  *were  in  use  together,  in  what  cases  one 
of  them    was   5uj)erseded    by   the   other,   or  survived   only   in 
a  particular  dialect.      That   the  first  aorist  was  tlie  prevalent 
form  in  the  later  ages  of  the  Greek  language  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned.      Buttmann,    like    our    cor resjum dent,   observes,    that 
"  while  all  clearly  derivative  verbs,   such   as  the  great  ma.ss 
of  those  in  vvw,  i^up,  and  so  on,  never  have  any  but  the  first 
aorist,  none  save  primitives,   or  those  which   may  be  classed 
along   with  them,  admit  of  a  second  aorist  active;   and  that 
even  of  these  it  is  only  found  in  a  limited  number  of  such 
verbs   as  belonged   to    the  earliest    period   of  the  language.^ 
Id  the  last  words  there  is  something  rather  like   tautology; 
for  there  could  liardly  be  any  primitive  verbs,  except  such  as 
belonged  to  the  earliest  period  of  the  language.     These  how- 
ever for  this  very  reason  are  many  of  them  words  that  occur 
in  almost  every  page.     On  the  whole  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
in  the  early   Greek  language  there  were  two  entirely  distinct 
mo<tes    of    forming    the    indefinite    preterite,  though   one   or 
the   other  was  in  most  cases   preferred,   as  euphony  or  some 
analogy   dictated,   till   at  a  later   period    the   first  aorist  got 


906  On  e0r/ai$t   Tenses 

complete    posseBsion    of  the    6cld»   so    that    every    newcomer 
enlisted    uoder    it.      Indeed    as   tlie   method    of  forming   the 
second  aorist  was  by  a  clian^  of  the  penultima,  while  the  prin- 
ciple implied  a  modificntion  of  the  theme,  it  could  not   well 
be  applied  to  any  but  dissyllabic  verbs.     Tlie  comparison  sug- 
gested by  our  ingenious  correspondent  with   what  has  taken 
place  in  our   own   language   holds   in    ail   its   parts.       Here 
too  in  early  times  the  numbers  of  regular  and  so-culled  irre- 
gular preterites  must  have  been  pretty  equally  balanced:  but 
as  the  adding  ed  was  a  simpler  and  easier  task  than  modifying 
the   theme  acx'ording  to  analogies  the  principle  of  which  was 
not,  very   distinct,    all   our  later   preterites  have  been  formed 
by  the  first  of    the.se   processes ;  and   in  sundry  instances  the 
older   form  has  been    driven  out  of  use   by   the  more    recent 
one.      The  comparison,  I  grant,  is  perfectly  just.     But  is  it 
a  just  inference  from  that  coinparinon,  that  wc  ought  to  alter 
the  system  of  our  Greek  grammars,  which  has  been  drnwn  up 
at   the  cost  of  so  much  learning  and  thought,  for  the  sake 
of  adapting   it   to   the  system,  if  system   it    can  be  called,  of 
our  own  grammar*,   which   are   stldoni   remarkable    for    any- 
thing else  than  their  slovenliness,  their  ignorance,   and   their 
presumption?       Is  the   hiphor   to  be    brought  down    to   the 
level  of  the   Iwser?  is   Apollo  to  be  drest  out  in  a  coat  and 
waistcoat  ?     Uather  might  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  remodel 
the    system    of  iiur   own    grammars,    to  give   them,   so  far  as 
the   character   uf    our  language    will   allow,    a   more    orderly 
and  shapely  form,  and  to  lessen   the   number   of    those  irre- 
gularities of  wliich  they   are  pretty  nearly  made  up.     For  it 
is  a  singular  property  of  English  grammars  that  tiiey  mostly 
consist  of  little   else   than   a  catalogue  of  exceptions.     Some 
broad  general  ride  is  laid  down ;    and  then  we  have  a  string 
of  examples    shewing    how    it    has   been    transgrest,    without 
any    attempt    to    explain    the    principle    of   such    deviations. 
For  it   is  easy  enough   to  lay  down  a  rule,  and  then  to  a^^sert 
that  whatever   contravenes  it  must    be    wrong:    but    if   it  be 
ever  true  that  the  exception  proves  the  rule,  it  can  only  be 
where  the  exception  is  a  rare  one.     Wherever  tlie  exceptions 
are   numerous,  they   prove    that  the   rule  is  faulty,  and  has 
been   drawn  up  without  a  due  consideration  uf  the   subject 
matter.     Indeed,  if  allowance  be  made  for  the  play  on   the 


1 


nifrihuted  to  the  Greek   Verb. 


209 


word,  one  might  say  that  we  never  shall  have  a  perfectly 
unexceptionable  grammar,  until  we  have  one  without  a  sin- 
gle exception  in  it.  Tlie  business  of  wisdom,  in  al)  it« 
operations,  is  to  breathe  the  spirit  of  order  into  that  which 
is,  or  appears  to  be,  without  order.  Thus  in  language  a 
pliitoftciphical  grammarian  will  seek  to  di%over,  to  arrange, 
and  to  classify,  the  principles  and  the  analogies  by  which 
a  iiutioi)  lias  been  guided  and  influenced  in  fashioning  the 
vocal  syinliols  of  its  thoughts.  In  Greek  grammar  a  good 
deal  \\as  already  been  effected  with  this  view;  and  a  new  life 
lias  been  infused  into  it  by  the  principle,  which  Hermann 
has  done  more  than  any  other  writer  to  enforce  and  illus- 
trate, that  nothing  in  it  is  arbitrary,  that  every  rule  has  a 
cause,  and  that  every  deviation  from  that  rule  must  also 
have  a  cause  of  its  own,  though  the  fragmentary  nature  of 
our  materials  may  often  impede  or  prevent  our  detecting  it. 

Instead,  I  say,  of  introducing  the  disordcrline».s  and 
bad  housewifery  of  our  English  granimars  into  the  Greek, 
We  might  employ  our  time  more  profitably  in  trying  to  make 
our  own  grammars  a  little  tidier.  At  present  we  have  a 
single  high  column  of  verbfl  piled  up  in  the  middle  of  the 
ronm,  while  all  that  will  not  suit  that  pile,  to  the  amount 
of  about  two  hundred,  lie  scattered  over  the  floor  in  con- 
fusion. Surely  one  cannot  hold  out  this  as  a  pattern  of  ar- 
rangement. Moreover  those  two  hundred  verbs,  be  it  re- 
membered, belong  to  the  prime  stock  of  the  language,  being 
all,  I  believe,  without  a  single  exception,  Anglosaxon  primi- 
tives (sec  Vol.  I.  p.  ()68) :  and  they  arc  among  the  words 
which  occur  the  most  frequently,  and  have  given  birth  to 
the  largest  families.  In  Germany  also  the  state  of  the  case 
some  time  since  was  much  the  same.  There  too  every  verb, 
which  did  not  answer  exactly  to  the  one  regulation-standard, 
was  called  irregular :  and  Adelung  makes  the  somewhat  singu- 
lar observation,  that  *'  originally  all  verbs  seem  to  have  been 
irregular  (urspriingUch  tearen  wnhf  nlle  Verba  irregttlar) ;'" 
that  is  to  snv,  ttu-y  did  not  conform  to  a  rule,  which  did  not 
exist.  It  is  a  curious  instance  of  the  power  of  technicalities 
over  thoughts,  that  he  was  not  aware  of  the  nonsense  he  was 
talking.  A  language  could  no  more  coalesce  out  of  irregular 
words,  than  a  world  could  out  of  the  indeternu'nate  atoms 
Vol..  II.  No.  4.  Di) 


SIO 


On  certain  Tetisett 


of  Epicuruft.  He  shewed  however  that  these  irregular  verbs 
were  not  quite  so  unruly  a.s  they  ap[}eared  to  be ;  and  he 
classed  them  under  a  variety  of  heads.  Some  little  in  the 
Mmc  way  was  done  for  our  own  language  by  Wallis  and 
Lowth;  and  the  latter  even  throws  out  hints  for  "a  divi- 
sion of  all  the  English  verbs  into  three  conjugations":  but 
in  most  of  our  recent  grammars  the  only  principle  of  arrange- 
ment applied  to  them  is  the  most  mechanical  of  all,  the 
alphnlwtical.  Nay  Mr  Gilchrist  in  the  Introduction  to  his 
Etymologic  Interpreter,  a  work  not  without  ingenuity,  but 
gricvoudly  disfigured  by  the  contemptuous  ai'rogance  of  its 
tone,  and  the  extravagance  of  its  groundless  assertions^  after 
Haying  that  "irregular  verbs,  like  all  annmalies,  are  exceed- 
ingly troublesome,"  adds  (p.  Ki?) :  "most  of  them,  evidently, 
originated  in  blundering  carelessness,  or  in  that  aversion  to 
polysyllables  which  operated  so  powerfully  on  our  Saxon  an- 
cestors," When  and  where  his  work  can  have  been  written 
it  is  hard  to  divine:  one  might  almost  fancy  it  must  have 
fallei^  from  the  moon  :  at  least  he  does  not  appear  much 
better  verst  in  the  English  language  of  the  present  day, 
than  in  that  of  our  Saxon  ancestors.  For  he  has  found 
out  that  such  preterites  and  participles  as  aivokey  itent^  /«- 
reft,  httilfj  caughty  dugt  frozcy  gilt^  nhofie^  sk'iv^  «/«t«,  have 
**  most  of  them  an  oideii  uncouthness,  except  to  the  lovers  of 
antique  obsoleteness  and  whihm  forms  of  literature;"  and 
further,  that  6/ed,  blew,  chose,  drunk,  Jiew,  Jfutig,  knetc, 
atruck,  told,  wept,  are  "  constantly  heard  among  the  un- 
gramniatic  members  of  society :'"  whereas  its  graroniatic  mem- 
bers, with  whom  he  no  doubt  is  in  the  habit  of  conversing, 
wherever  it  may  be  their  fate  to  be  found,  whether  in  New 
Zealand  or  Lnputa,  of  course  always  say  choosed,  and 
drawed,  and  jiinged,  and  striked^  and  teUed,  and  drinked. 
Yet  our  older  grammarians  had  set  us  a  much  better  ex- 
ample in  this  matter.  Ben  .lonson  after  speaking  of  the  first 
conjugation,  "  which  fetchcth  the  time  past  from  the  present 
by  adding  pd,"  and  which  is  "  the  common  inn  to  lodge  every 
strange  and  foreign  guest,"  classes  our  other  verbs  in  three 
additional  conjugations,  and  prefaces  his  account  of  tlie 
second  by  saying :  ''  That  which  foUoweth,  for  anything  I 
can  find  (though    I   have  with  some  diligence  searched   after 


a/Mh 


iv  Mr 


^1 


it)f  entertaiucth  none  but  natural  and  horaeboni  words,  which, 
though  in  number  they  be  not  many,  a  hundred  and  twenty, 
or  therealM>uts,  yet  in  variation  are  so  divers  and  uncertain 
that  they  need  much  the  stamp  of  some  good  logic  to  beat 
them  into  proportion.  Wc  have  set  down  that,  that  in  our 
judgement  agrceth  best  writh  reason  and  good  order.  Whicli 
notwithstanding,  if  it  »eem  to  any  to  be  too  rough  hewed, 
let  him  plane  it  out  more  smoothly  ;  anil  I  shall  not  only 
not  envy  it,  but,  in  the  behalf  of  my  country*,  most  heartily 
tbank  him  for  so  great  a  benefit ;  hoping  that  I  shall  be 
thought  sufficiently  to  have  done  my  part,  if,  in  tolling 
tliis  bell,  I  may  draw  others  to  a  deeper  consideration  of 
the  matter:  for,  touching  myself,  I  must  needs  confesK, 
that  after  mucli  pninful  e-lntrning,  this  only  would  come." 
Unfortunately  old  Krn  tolUil  his  bell  iu  vutn  :  nolxxly  luis 
heeded  his  summons :  Wallls  declared  tt  was  a  delusion :  and 
our  grammftrinrs  of  late,  instead  of  going  on  churning,  to 
see  whether  anything  better  would  come  of  it,  seem  rather 
to  have  taken  a  pleasure  in  tossing  in  everything  pellmell, 
as  it  were  into  a  witches  hodgepodge.  With  the  help  how- 
ever of  what  has  been  done  for  the  grammar  of  all  the  Teu- 
tonic languages  by  Grimm,  and  for  that  of  the  Anglosaxnn 
by  Rask,  it  would  not  be  very  difficult  to  draw  up  our 
irregulars  in  something  like  rank  and  file.  It  is  a  pity  that 
Mr  Bosworth  in  his  Anglosaxon  Grammar  did  not  shake  off 
the  trammels  of  the  vulgar  system,  but  lays  down  (p.  1S2) 
that  "in  Anglosaxon  all  the  inflexions  of  verbs  may  be 
arranged  under  one  form :  there  is  therefore  only  one  con- 
jugation:"  though  he  is  thereby  compelled  soon  after  (p.  156) 
to  declare  that  **  in  Anglosaxon  most  verbs  are  irregular:" 
and  aays  (p.  14-*)  that  "  the  primitive  preterite  in  Anglo- 
saxon is  formed  by  the  change  of  the  characteristic  vowel 
or  diphthong  of  the  verb,"  and  that  "  the  modern  English 
past  tense  is  no  other  than  the  past  participle  with  that 
usurpetl  sigiiification.""  And  yet  Wallis,  who  appears  to  have 
been  the  founder  of  the  Procrustean  school  of  our  gramma- 
rians, and  to  have  first  set  up  the  system  of  throwing  all  our 
verbs  into  the  same  mould,  and  condemning  all  such  as  did 
not  fit  it,  had  protested  against  the  injurious  crrour  counnil- 
ted  by    his    predecessors  in  arranging   the  English    language 


SIS 


On  rertain   Tettsea 


according  to  principles  drawn  nui  frum  its  own  practice,  but 
from  that  of  other  tongues :  and  Mr  Bosworth  repeats  lus 
protest,  and  commends  it:  which  however,  specious  as  it 
may  have  been  in  Wallisen  days, —  when  there  was  so 
mucli  that  was  merely  inveterate  and  taken  for  panted  in 
the  ]>revalcnt  opinions  on  fliich  matters,  that  whatever  led 
men  to  explore  their  validitv  and  tcnableness  was  not  without 
its  use,— seems  at  the  present  day  quite  out  of  place.  Now 
that  the  affinity  of  the  Teutonic  languages  to  the  Greek  and 
Latin,  as  well  as  the  other  offsets  of  the  great  Indian  family, 
has  been  so  incontrovertibly  establisht, — now  that  the  family 
likeness  which  runs  through  them,  and  which  in  some  features, 
as  is  often  the  case  in  families,  after  having  been  lust  sight 
of  for  a  time,  reappears  in  the  remoter  branches,  has  been  so 
clearly  pointed  out,- — now  that  the  pervading  operation  of 
the  same  principles  has  been  traced  through  all  their  vari- 
eties of  formation  and  inflexion  with  such  subtilty  and  accu- 
racy, as  it  ha*  been  more  especially  by  Bupp, — it  is  time  to 
give  over  the  barbarian  cry  thot  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Wc  too,  it  ought  to  be  our  1>oast, 
"  are  sprung  of  Earth's  first  blood :'"  we  too  belong  to  that 
race,  which  has  brought  forth  almost  every  great  act  and 
almost  every  wise  thought  whereby  man  has  adorned  and 
pnlightcned  his  birthplace:  and  our  speech  is  the  titledeed 
of  our  descent  from  it.  Greatly  as  it  has  lieen  modified  and 
changed  by  the  concourw,  th(^  shock,  and  the  fusion  of  (iialects, 
and  by  the  influences  of  climate,  of  habits,  of  ways  of  thinking, 
our  language  in  its  primary  characteristics  still  resembles 
the  Latin  and  Greek :  and  the  same  elementary  principles 
of  classification  may  not  inappropriately  be  applit^  to  it. 
Even  Hickes,  though  he  gives  only  one  regular  conjugation 
of  the  Anglosaxon  verbs,  and  throws  all  the  others  in  a  heap 
aft  anomalous  or  irregular,  remarks  (pp.  54^  55)  that  the 
greater  part  of  these  anomalous  verbs  follow  a  principle  of 
their  own,  and  form  their  preterite  by  casting  off  the  ter- 
mination of  tlic  present,  and  changing  its  ]>cnultimatc  vowel, 
generally  into  a  ;  and  he  adds  that  these  for»an  m&ffis  proprie 
Befntndam  conjugationem  constUuere  videaniur  quam  inter 
anomal^i  recenseri.  Quamcbrem  in  Grnmmatua  Frannca  id 
genus  verba  ad  secundam  eonjugationem  tanguttm  ad  sftam 


attrihftted  to  ffie  Greek   Verb. 


913 


ciassem  reduximus.  Lye  however,  in  the  Grammar,  founded 
an  thnt  of  Hickes,  which  he  pre6xt  to  Junius,  unaccountably 
nverlookl  tliis  ini}X)rtaiit  remark,  which  is  the  clue  to  the 
whole  labyrinth,  and  after  giving  the  first  conjugation  says, 
that  there  are  many  verbs  tfuae  ne^ue  ad  hanr  reduH  pos- 
sunii  uet/ue  aiium  commode  constituent  cuvjuf^oiionem. 
And  as  he  whu  comes  after  is  sure  to  make  a  point  of  going 
beyond  those  who  went  before  him.  Manning  in  bis  Grammar 
prefixt  to  Lye's  Dictionary  declares  them  to  be  a  mere  mass 
of  confusion  :  Compiurn  sunt,  tarn  Anglonaaonica  tjuam  Go- 
thicQ  verhoy  quae  ad  nullam  regulam^  vel  certam  cofijugandi 
methodum  retiuci  possunt.  Such  a  hazardous  thing  is  it 
for  any  one  (o  alter  the  words  of  a  writer,  whose  thoughts 
he  purposes  to  express,  without  examining  the  grounds  of 
them  :  he  will  often  leave  out  the  little  limiting  words  which 
constitute  the  very  dift'ercnce  between  truth  and  falsehood. 
What  Lye  says  is  merely  injudicious  :  what  Manning  says, 
is  untrue.  But  it  is  a  broad  assertion:  and  we  are  all  too 
fond,  not  only  of  making  broad  assertions,  but  also  of  con- 
verting what  we  hear  or  read  into  them.  I  have  had  to  touch 
on  this  point  before  :  but  the  paramount,  indispensable  im- 
portance of  veracity  in  little  things,  of  accuracy  in  details, 
of  fidelity  in  the  colours  utid  shades  as  well  as  in  the  outline, 
is  so  little  regarded,  either  in  real  life  or  in  literature,  and 
so  much  evil  in  Iwth  has  accrued  from  the  neglect  of  it, 
that  it  can  hardly  be  urged  too  repeatedly  :  and  one  evermore 
finds  occasion  for  enforcing  it, 

Tbe  best  system  for  an  English  grammarian  to  adopt — 
if  I  may  venture  to  express  an  opinion  on  a  subject  which 
requires  no  little  thought  and  a  long  familiarity  with  it  to 
make  out  what  the  best  system  really  is, — would  seem  to  be 
that  followed  by  Becker  in  his  excellent  German  Grammar : 
to  divide  the  whole  body  of  our  verbs  into  two  distinct  con- 
jugations,—  the  first,  or,  as  he  terms  it,  the  old  form,  com- 
prising almost  all  the  so-called  irregulars,  in  which  the  vowel 
of  the  theme  uudergoes  a  change  in  the  preterite,  and  which 
would  liave  to  be  subdivided  into  several  classes, — the  second, 
or  new  form,  in  which  the  preterite  adds  ed  (or  d)  or  /  to 
the  theme,  according  as  the  tenuinatiofi  is  preccfled  by  a 
flat  or  u   ifharp    consonant  (see  Vol.  i.   p.  G6/2).      Were  such 


du 


certain  Tensci* 


a  plan  pursued,  this  portion  of  our  grammar  would  assume 
an  entirely  new  and  much  more  intelligible  as  well  as  graceful 
character.  In  Becker*'s  Grammar  we  further  see  the  meaning 
of  the  W(irds  quoted  al>i)ve  from  Adelung.  All  the  primitive 
verbs,  he  remarks,  belonged  orijajinallv  to  the  first  of  his 
two  conjugations,  thougli  many  of  them  m  course  of  time 
have  gone  over  to  the  second.  It  would  be  uu  intcrcstiog 
enquiry  to  ascertain,  as  well  as  our  means  will  enable  us,  how 
far  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  Greek  aorists.  ButtmannV 
observation  quoted  above  (p.  207)  might  lead  us  to  suspect 
that  the  case  may  have  been  nearly  the  same :  and  there  is  a 
striking  analogy  between  the  mode  of  forming  the  second 
aorist,  and  that  of  forming  the  preterite  in  Bcckcr''s  first 
conjugation;  while  the  addition  of  aa  in  the  first  aorist  may 
in  some  measure  be  compared  to  that  of  de  or  te.  In  a 
complete  English  grammar  there  should  be  a  list  of  all  such 
tunicoat  verbs,  as  well  as  of  tliose  that  have  remained  faithful 
to  the  old  system  in  despite  of  fashion  :  it  would  be  desirable 
also  to  illustrate  this  list  by  a  collection  of  all  similar  proteritcfi 
still  preserved  in  our  provincial  dialects,  such  as  snew  {sjiowed)^ 
mew  (mowed)^  hew  {hoi'd)^  ris  (after  the  analogy  of  bif-i  slid, 
chid)y  which  are  still  found,  as  no  doubt  many  like  forms  are, 
in  some  of  our  counties :  and  it  should  be  ascertained,  as 
far  as  it  can  be,  by  a  diligent  examination  of  our  old 
writers  at  what  period  the  changes  took  place.  Thu.s  for 
instance  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  the  Morte  d'Arthur  I 
have  fallen  in  with  hu^h  {laught)^  p'^ht  (pitcht)^  van  (term), 
awroke  (atrreakt)y  aUght  {alighted)^  yield  {yielded).  It  would 
be  well  als(>  if  such  verbs  were  illustrated  by  a  view  of  their 
forms  in  German  and  the  other  cognate  languages.  For  a 
grammar,  to  be  good,  must  be  of  a  historical  character.  Our 
granmiarians  at  present  only  think  of  teaching  us  what  the 
language  is,  or  what  they  choose  to  farcy  it  ought  to  be, 
at  this  day.  Yet  in  language,  move  almost  than  in  anything 
else,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  present,  except  in 
connexion  with  the  past.  Nor  is  the  question  we  have  been 
discussing  a  mere  empty  dispute  about  a  name,  devoid  of  any 
practical  significance.  Such  is  the  sway  of  words  over  thoughts 
and  opinions,  that  to  call  anything  irregular  or  anomalous  is 
to  fasten  a    stigma  upon    it :    and   the  mere  notion   that  our 


atfrUtufed  to  the  Greek  Verb, 


215 


irregiiljir  vrrbs  as  xurli  are  nil  iiiordinatf  excrescence  iii  uur 
grniinnnticul  system,  has  led  many  of  our  grannnariaiis  to 
recommend  our  getting  rid  of  them:  just  as  the  name  rotten 
hoTQugks,  to  take  the  most  recent  instance  in  point,  has  ex- 
ercised an  incalculable  influence  in  convincing  people  that 
such  boroughs  ought  to  be  abolisht.  Yet  our  language  would 
be  a  very  great  sufferer  by  such  changes  as  Cobhett  ai(d 
Mr  Gilchrist  recommend  :  its  harmony  above  all  would  be  de- 
plorably injured :  we  should  lose  many  of  our  moat  sonorous 
words,  and  have  an  ever-recurring  final  dental  in  their  stead. 
What  would  become  of  our  poetry,  if  artme  were  to  be  turned 
into  arisedj  abode  into  abided,  fought  into  jighted,  sought 
into  seeked^  taught  into  teached^  caught  into  ratched,  thought 
into  thinked,  i>rought  into  hringed,  nang  and  sung  into 
einged^  cann'.  into  corned,  hound  into  bitideds  broke  into 
breakedj  strove  into  s/rtned,  drank  and  drunk  into  drinked, 
Jlew  Sit\AjUiwn  into Jfied,  forgftt  into  forgetted,  gave  into  gived  f 
The  genius  of  language  works  its  winding  way  like  a  river; 
and  beauty  springs  up  spontaneously  along  its  margin,  and 
pleasure  may  float  upon  its  surface :  but  a  graniniarnionger"* 
language  would  be  like  a  sluggish  morotonuus  canal,  with 
its  bare  unsightly  banks,  fit  fur  nothing  but  barges  of  cumbrous 
marketable  commtKJiticR  to  be  dragged  along  it.  Aud  yet 
even  in  a  practical  point  of  view,  when  nature  puts  forth  her 
power,  no  creature  of  art  can  vie  with  her:  nor  is  the  canal 
after  all  anything  more  than  a  base  copy,  fed  by  draining  off 
the  waters  of  the  river,  winch  it  no  doubt  despises  as  very 
crooked,  useless,  wasteful,  troublesome,  and  irregular. 

])ut  if  it  be  a  sorry  mode  of  improving  a  grammar  to 
increase  the  number  of  irregularities  in  it,  neither  is  such  a 
course  likely  to  be  very  successful  in  affording  relief  to  the 
memory.  For  not  only  have  we  much  less  to  remember  in 
a  rule  than  in  a  list  of  anomalies ;  but  in  the  former  case  the 
understanding  aids  the  memory,  in  the  latter  it  rather  thwarts 
it.  Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  any  strong  reason  for  appre- 
hending that  too  much  time  and  ingenuity  will  be  wasted 
in  attempts  to  discover  a  distinction  Iwtwcen  the  two  aorists, 
or  that  an  unfortunate  boy  will  be  posed,  like  the  long-cared 
quadruped  between  his  two  bundles  of  hay,  to  which  of  thera 
he  ought    to  betake   himself.      It  is  to  be   feared    that  ljoy.« 


316 


On  certain   Tenses 


are  seldom  ovcrnico  in  balancing  between  contenilln^  claim- 
ants for  their  attention.  They  are  quite  content  at  find- 
injT,  or  at  supposing  that  they  have  found,  nay  word  that 
will  answer  their  purjmse;  and  the  first  that  comes  uppcniioat 
Bcrves  lliem.  At  all  events  it  might  very  easilv  be  stated  in 
the  grammar,  and  undoubtedly  it  should  be  so,  that  there 
is  no  difference  at  all  between  tiie  two  aorists,  and  that, 
unless  perhaps  in  one  or  two  peculiar  idioms,  they  are  used 
without  the  slightest  discrimination.  Among  the  num- 
berless vagaries  that  have  entered  the  heads  of  the  learned 
this  appears  to  have  been  one  of  the  rarest.  Hermann 
indeed,  in  the  passage  above  referred  to,  mentions  the  mita 
opinio  of  a  certain  scholar  named  Steinbri'iehel,  rut  mtrisii 
secundi  ad  primum  eadem  ratio  visa  est  esse,  quae  est  plus- 
quamperfecti  ad  perfectum.  Dr  Murray  too  says  in  his 
History  of  the  European  Languages  (Vol.  ii.  p.  117)  that 
"there  is  a  difference  between  ELEXA  and  ELEGON,  the 
aorist :  the  one  is  more  active,  and,  by  possession  of  SA, 
alludes  more  to  operative  performance,  the  other  barely  ex- 
presses the  fact.'"  But  as  there  never  was  such  an  aorist  as 
tXeyovi  it  will  not  be  very  easy  to  determine  the  exact 
shade  of  difference  which  Heparated  it  from  cXefa:  nor  would 
it  be  much  easier  to  find  out  the  distinction  between  ex- 
Teim  and  efcravov,  or  in  what  respect  the  latter  was  defi- 
cient in  *' operative  performance.""  It  is  true  that  in  certain 
verbs,  both  the  aorists  of  which  were  retained  in  ordinary 
speech,  a  distinction  was  made  between  them,  and  that  the 
drfr^t  aorist  was  u»ed  in  a  transitive  or  causative  sense,  the 
second  in  an  intransitive  or  neuter:  such  was  the  case  for 
instance  with  eartiaa  and  earrtv,  with  efpvtra  and  efpw,  with 
Iff/Scca  and  ca^tjt't  a"<l  others,  a  list  of  wliich  is  ^ven  by 
Buttmann,  VoL  ii.  pp.  48,  foil.  A  similar  distinction  was 
supposed  by  Lowth  to  prevail  in  the  use  of  the  preterites 
from  our  own  verb  han^:  which,  **  when  active  (he  says), 
may  perhaps  be  most  properly  used  in  the  regular  form  ; 
when  neuter,  in  the  irregular.*"  It  might  have  been  well  if 
this  practice,  supp>sing  it  ever  was  the  practice,  had  establisht 
itself.  The  Germans  too,  Uuttraann  remarks,  draw  the  same 
line  Iwtwcen  lierderbte  and  verdarb,  between  sohtvelUe  and 
iirJtwoU.      This  however  is  far  from  a   general  characteristic 


attributed  to  the  GreekVerb. 


217 


of  the  second  aorist :  in  the  great  bulk  of  verbs  whicli  have 
that  tense,  its  signification  is  no  les^  trunsitive  than  that 
of  the  present.  Nor  dci  the  facts  seem  to  bear  one  out  in 
conjecturing,  as  one  might  incline  to  do,  that  the  verbs 
the  second  aorist  of  which  kept  its  currency  were  of  an  in- 
transitive cast :  the  preference  seeuia  rather  to  liave  been  dic- 
tated by  a  regard  to  the  form  of  the  word  than  to  its  meaning. 
It  cannut,  one  shuuld  imagine,  be  very  difficult  to  teach  a 
boy  that  sue))  is  the  case,  espt'cialty  with  ihe  help  tif  the  ana- 
logies which  our  own  language  supplies. 

But  though  I  think  we  may  safely  abide  by  the  practice 
of  the  old  graimnariaiis  in  giving  the  active  voice  a  double 
aorist«  it  is  very  desirable  that  we  should  abandon  them  when 
ihey  talk  about  a  perfect  middle  witli  the  same  termination 
as  the  perfect  active;  and  that,  with  Hermann,  Uuttmnnn, 
\(atthife,  Rijfit,  Pinager,  we  should  transfer  the  tense  to  which 
they  give  that  name,  and  of  couree  its  satellite  too  along  with 
it,  to  tfic  active  voice.  The  reasons  for  doing  so  are  statc<l 
by  Buttmann  in  his  admirable  Grammar  (Vol.  1.  pp.  370,  foil.) 
with  liis  wonted  clearness  and  good  sense.  It  is  true  that 
this  form  of  the  perfect  has  not  unfrequcntly  an  intransitive 
meaning,  and  that  in  some  verbs,  in  which  we  meet  with  both 
forms  of  the  perfect  in  «,  the  same  distinction,  whicli  was  re- 
markt  above  between  the  second  aorist  and  the  first,  is  observ- 
able between  this  perfect  and  the  other :  for  instance  between 
innvida  and  xejreiKrt,  between  oXwXa  and  oXwXvKa,  between 
ireTTpaya  and  ■jr€V/)a;^a.  But  in  like  manner  the  other  form 
will  sometimes  go  along  with  the  second  aurist  in  taking  an 
intransitive  sense  when  the  present  has  a  transitive  one,  as 
we  sec  in  eff^rjitay  ■rre(pv/(a,  eii^Ka.  In  fact  one  has  much 
oftencr  occasion  to  speak  of  a  past  state,  than  of  a  past  action, 
with  immediate  reference  to  the  present  moment,  in  the  man- 
ner denoted  by  the  Greek  perfect.  *'  /  Aare  iived  mid  have 
lfme.d^  says  Tiickla  in  her  beautiful  song:  and  many  might 
be  led  to  say  the  same:  but  few  would  ever  find  inducement 
to  say,  /  tiave  loved  a  pertion:  in  speaking  of  our  feelings 
toward  others  we  should  mostly  use  the  indefinite  preterite, 
/  tmwd  tfiem.  Indeed  the  story  of  Thelymnia  at  the  Iwgin- 
ning  of  this  number  supplies  iis  with  a  passage  just  in  point. 
Did  you  ever  love  any  one  ¥  she  asks  Enthymedes.  Unless 
Vol.  II.  No.  4.  Ek 


218 


On  certain  Tenses 


bIic  Imd  m)t1i>(l  ft7iy  ime,  slie  would  pruliahly  have  said^  Have 
you  ever  loved?  Did  yon  ever  loee^  nnuld  induiHl  have  been 
perfectly  appropriate :  liut  so  grnceftil  a  speaker  couhl  hardly 
have  askt.  Have  you  cj'er  lor.ed  any  nnfi  ?  though  even  if  it 
were  worded  in  this  way  the  question  would  still  refer  to  the 
feelings  of  Euthymedes,  not  to  the  object  of  them.  Thus  one 
often  says,  /  have  just  eaten  my  dinner:  hut  this  is  merely 
equivalent  to  /  have  just  dined;  and  he  who  says  it  is  speak- 
ing with  reference  to  himself,  not  to  the  dinner.  On  the 
other  hand  the  dandy,  who  was  askt  whether  he  never  ate 
pease,  answered,  IlV;t/,  yes  manm,  I  Itelieve  I  did  mice  eat  a 
pea.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  one  can  never  use  the  per- 
fect objectively,  hut  that  one  has  much  more  frequent  need 
to  U8C  it  subjectively :  and  this  may  enable  us  to  understand 
why  so  many  of  the  Greek  prefects,  even  when  tliey  come 
from  transitive  verbs,  arc  intransitive,  and  why  most  of  those 
in  common  use  are  so,  to  whichever  form  they  belong;  for 
instance  emica,  {ief^tjxa,  TeOvrjKaj  apapa,  oeina.  OXw\a  oc- 
curs a  hundred  times  for  once  that  we  meet  with  oAaiXeca: 
w€ir(H$a,  wewpaya  are  at  least  twenty  times  as  common  as 
•TreVciica,  iretrpaya.  But  there  is  no  valid  reason  whatsoever 
for  assigning  the  subjective  perfects  to  the  middle  voice  when 
they  belong  to  the  one  form,  any  more  than  when  they  are 
of  the  other.  The  middle  voice  has  no  greater  claim  upon  3e^ia 
tlian  it  has  upon  oeloiKa  or  e^cicra,  no  greater  upon  irewpaya 
than  upon  wpaTTta  when  it  is  used  intransitively,  no  greater 
upon  iXK^Koa  than  upon  TfKovaa  or  aKOvoj.  It  must  be  allowed 
that  some  of  the  tenses  which  belong  more  appropriately  to 
the  middle  voice,  have  often  a  corresponding  signification : 
thus  the  future  of  the  last-mentioned  verb  is  oKova-oftni.  But 
in  like  manner  we  meet  with  a  large  number  of  verbs,  of 
which  there  is  a  tolerably  long  list  in  6uttniann''s  Grammar, 
Vol.  II.  p.  52,  which  have  a  passive  or  middle  form  of  the 
future  answering  to  an  active  present.  In  fact  this  was  one 
of  the  artifices  to  which  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language 
had  recourse,  to  avoid  speaking  presumptuously  of  the  future: 
for  there  is  an  awful,  irrepressible,  and  almost  instinctive  con- 
sciousness of  the  uncertainty  of  the  future,  and  of  our  own 
powerlcssness  over  it,  which  in  all  cultivated  languages  has 
silently  and    imperceptibly  modified    the  modes  of  expression 


attrifnited  lo  the 


with  regard  to  it :  and  from  a  double  kind  uf  litotes,  the 
one  belonging  to  human  nature  generally,  the  other  imposed 
by  goodbrtfding  on  the  individual  and  urging  him  to  veil  the 
manifestations  of  his  will,  we  are  induced  to  frame  all  sorts  of 
nhiftA  for  the  sake  of  speaking  with  becoming  modesty.  An- 
other method,  as  we  know,  frequently  adopted  by  the  Greeks 
was  the  use  of  the  conditional  moods:  and  as  sentiments  of 
this  kind  always  imply  some  degree  of  intellectual  refinement, 
and  strengthen  with  its  increase,  this  is  called  an  Attic  uiiiige. 
The  same  name  too  has  often  been  given  to  the  abovemen- 
tioned  middle  forms  of  the  future:  not  thnt  in  either  case  the 
practice  was  peculiar  to  the  Attic  dialect,  hut  that  it  was 
more  general  where  the  feelings  which  produced  it  were 
stronger  and  more  distinct.  Here  again  our  own  language 
supplies  us  with  ail  exact  purallcl :  indeed  this  is  llie  only 
way  of  accounting  for  the  singular  mixture  of  the  two  verbs 
shall  and  wili^  by  which,  as  we  have  no  auxiliary  answering 
lo  the  German  werde^  we  express  the  future  tense.  Our 
future,  or  at  least  what  answers  to  it,  is,  /  vAa//,  thou  witt^ 
he  mU.  When  speaking  in  the  first  jwrsoti,  we  speak  sub- 
missively :  when  spcnking  to  or  of  another,  we  speak  court- 
eously. In  our  older  writers,  for  instance  in  our  translation 
of  the  Bible.,  shnll  is  np])lied  to  all  threr  persons:  we  had  not 
then  reacht  that  stage  of  politeness  which  shrinks  from  the 
apjx^arance  even  of  speaking  compulsorily  of  another.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Scotch  use  wW  in  the  first  person:  that  is, 
as  a  nation  they  have  nut  acquired  that  particular  shade  of 
gOiKJbreeding  which  slirinks  from  thrusting  itself  forward. 
It  is  rather  characteristic,  that  Cohl>ett  in  his  Grammar  en- 
tirely passes  over  the  distinction  between  nhall  and  «?i//, 
saying  that  their  uses  "arc  as  well  known  to  us  oil  as  the 
uses  of  our  tcoth  and  our  noses;  and  to  misapplv  them 
argues  not  only  a  deficiency  in  the  reafioniug  faculties,  but 
almost  a  deficiency  in  instinctive  discrimination:'"  fur  assuredly 
there  never  was  a  man  more  abhorrent  from  every  kind  of 
litofen,  wliich,  to  judge  from  the  interpretations  he  gives  of 
such  Greek  words  as  he  is  compelled  to  make  use  of,  he  would 
probably  say  meant  nhpephhnpsa.  Nor  is  t.'ohbett  the  only 
grammarian  whci  tries  to  rover  his  evasion  of  this  difficulty 
hy    having    recourse   to  a  little  bUistenng:     Mr    GilchristV 


sso 


On  certain   Tensea 


"  grammatic  tncnibers  of  society'"  do  not  seem  to  under- 
Btand  much  al>uut  it:  so  after  telling  us  (p.  ]6i)  that  shall 
"  is,  we  believe,  merely  a  diversity  of  iri//,'*  and  talking 
about  the  "  perplexity  caused  by  it,"'  he  exclaims  that,  "  if 
the  coliective  wisdom  of  the  grammatic  world  were  deified 
with  legislative  omnipotence,  Eiigliish  would  in  time  be 
rendered  as  invincibly  difficult  as  Greek.*"  This  sentence 
was  perhaps  designed  as  a  sample  how  invincibly  easy  En- 
glish might  become,  wei-e  it  not  for  the  troublesome  shackles 
of  grammar  and  logic  and  sense.  A  writer  in  the  Edinburgh 
Review  too  (Vol.  xlvh.  p.  4fl2),  who  lias  collected  a  number 
of  instances  to  shew  that  the  ancient  usage  did  nut  coincide 
with  the  modern,  and  who,  if  he  chuse,  might  collect  almost 
as  many  to  prove  that  the  Athenians  in  the  time  of  Demos- 
thenes did  not  talk  Homeric  Greek,  inveys  against  **  this 
unlearnablc  system  of  speaking,*"  as  **  one  of  the  most  capri- 
cious and  inconsistent  of  all  imaginary  irregularities  -^  as- 
suring us,  as  n  Boeotian  might  have  assured  Menander,  that 
we  *■*■  value  ourselves  on  a  strange  anomaly,"  which  '*  is  compa- 
ratively of  recent  introduction,  and  has  not  been  fully  esta- 
blisht  for  so  much  as  two  centuries.*"  But  even  our  more 
intelligent  grammarians  are  by  no  means  satisfactory  ou 
this  point.  Johnson  in  his  Grammar  says  nothing  about 
the  matter :  and  his  account  of  skaH  and  wW  in  his  Dic- 
tionary is  clumsy  and  for  from  precise.  'I'hr  generality  on 
the  other  hand  follow  Wallis,  in  loving  down  that  *"  wilt  in 
the  first  ]>erson  promises  or  threatens,  in  tlie  second  and 
third  only  foretells,""  and  that  *■■  tJiall  on  the  ctmtrary  in  the 
first  |)erson  simply  foretells,  in  lite  second  and  third  pro- 
mises, commands,  or  threatens.''  Yet  no  attempt  is  made 
to  give  any  explanation  of  this  inconsistency.  That  the 
one  suggested  above  is  correct,  seems  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  in  interrogative  and  dependent  sentences,  when 
the  use  of  shall  does  not  convey  any  appearance  of  in- 
fringing on  another's  free  will,  it  is  stitl  employed  in  the 
old  way  to  express  futurity.  We  say,  Shall  you  he  nt  the 
play  this  emmitt^?  and  John  Hoes  not  think  he  shall  be 
there.  With  such  nicety  however  do  we  guard  against  what 
we  look  upon  as  an  oflfensive  encroathmcnl,  that,  if  .John's 
thought    had    related  to  another  porhon,  we  should  say  Jn/ni 


attributed  to  the  Greek  Verb. 


921 


4oe$  not  think  he  will  he  there.  It  would  bo  well  |>erhap» 
if  graninmritirtii,  anil  inileett  all  ayi^tcm-niakcrs,  when  lliey  arc 
driving  their  triuaipliaiit  oar  along  oiiiid  the  prostrate-  victims 
of  their  specutations,  and  casting  an  exulting  eye  over  the 
train  nianaeled  by  their  de»pottcal  rules,  had  a  monitor  to  cry 
in  their  ears,  Rememher  that  thou  art  a  mart.  A  number  of 
peculiarities  in  language,  which  at  present  seem  to  hold  out 
insu[K>rable  difhculties,  would  become  easily  intelligible  if 
we  ouly  took  into  the  account  that  it  was  framed  and  fashioned 
by  beings  with  human  notions  and  feelings. 

But  to  return  to  the  so-called  perfect  middle:  that  il  has 
no  good  title  to  be  called  so,  is  sufliciently  provetl  by  the  fact 
stated  by  Buttmann  (p.  370),  that  in  all  cases  where  a  verb 
has  a  regular  middle  voice,  with  its  appropriate  reflex  signi- 
fication, the  |)erfect  and  plusperfect  pasyive,  and  they  alone, 
are  used  as  the  perfect  and  plusperfect  of  that  voice,  and 
possess  that  signification  along  with  their  own.  By  this  re- 
mark the  whole  phenomenon  of  the  middle  voice  is  very  much 
simplified.  It  no  longer  appears  to  us  as  an  incongruous  and 
perplexing  patchwork  of  active  and  passive  forms,  mixt  to- 
gether rme  cannot  tell  how  or  why.  We  perceive  that 
throughotit  it  is  nothing  else  than  the  passive  verb,  used  un- 
der a  peculiar  m<KliBcation  of  its  meaning,  and  illustrating 
the  tendency  of  the  Greeks  in  early  times  to  look  upon 
themselves  in  all  reflex  acts,  whether  external  or  internal, 
as  patients  rather  than  agents:  a  tendency  which  is  cxempli- 
^cd  in  evcrv  page  of  the  Homeric  poems,  and  which  belongs 
more  or  less  to  every  people  in  an  early  stage  of  civilization, 
before  the  nation  comes  of  age,  and  acquires  the  conscious- 
ness along  with  the  frt^  use  of  its  powers.  Thi.s  seems  to 
be  the  reason  why  go  many  of  the  verbs  employed  by  the 
Greeks  to  denote  states  of  mind  or  of  feeling  have  a  pa.tsive 
fot^ ;  such  as  ippal^ofiat,  oiofiai  (otVcii)>  a'taBavofiai,  ahttrro- 
/jMi,  ewlaTafitUj  fiovXottaiy  ayofiatt  ^ooftai,  fxaiVovai.  In  some 
tenses  indeed,  in  which  a  variety  of  forms  presented  them- 
selves, one  of  them  was  allotted  more  peculiarly  to  the  pas- 
sive signification,  another  to  the  middle:  that  instinct,  which 
in  all  languages  is  evermore  silently  at  work  in  desynony- 
' mixing  words,  as  (!oIeridge  terms  it,  and  giving  dcfinitenc.os 
to  the  speech  of  n  people  in  proportion  a.s  its  ihonghlft  become 


fiSS 


certain    Tenses 


more  de6nitc,  manifested  itself  in  assigning  one  form  of  the 
future  and  aorist  to  the  pas6i\'€  voice,  another  to  the  middle ; 
the  preference  being  perhaps  determined  by  the  affinity  of  the 
latter  to  the  corresponding  active  tenses,  of  the  former  to  the 
perfect  passive.  Instances  however  remain  to  shew  that,  at 
the  time  when  the  Greek  Iniiguage  comes  first  into  view, 
the  line  of  demarcation  was  not  deemed  quite  impassable  t 
and  the  passive  voice  would  not  unfrequently  assert  its  rights 
to  its  ca^t-ofT  future,  and  now  and  then,  though  very  rarely, 
even  to  the  uorist.  If  we  wish  to  understand  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  Greek  verb,  to  appreciate  the  deliciicy  of  its  or- 
guuization  and  the  consistency  of  all  its  parts  with  each 
other,  we  must  bear  in  mind  what  was  the  true  state  of  the 
case;  that  for  instance  the  use  of  the  future  middle  in  a 
pasuive  sense,  which  is  so  common  in  Attic  writers,  was  not 
an  arbitrary  licence,  but  was  in  perfect  accord  with  the  ori- 
ginal force  of  tliat  tense,  a  force  which  it  had  not  yet  entirely 
lost.  It  was  not  that  the  Attic  writers  multn  futura  media 
ponrbfint  pro  pasaitia,  as  Pierson  says  in  a  note  on  Msris, 
p.  13 :  but  that  form,  which  in  the  later  ages  of  the  Greek 
language,  iu  the  ages  when  the  grannnarians  wrote,  seems  to 
have  been  used  exclusively  in  a  middle  sense,  had  pre- 
viously had  a  wider  range  legitimately  belonging  to  it.  To 
call  such  things  licences  implies  an  oblivion  of  seasons  and 
circumstances :  it  is  like  taxing  Shakspeare  and  Chaucer  with 
taking  liberties  with  the  English  language,  because  they  often 
use  words  in  a  different  meaning  fron)  that  we  now  attach 
to  them;  a  charge  which  might  be  deemed  inconceivably  silly 
and  absurd,  if  so  many  of  our  grammarians  and  commen- 
tators on  our  old  writers  were  not  perpetually  bringing  it 
forward.  In  like  manner  the  misnomer  given  to  what  is 
commonly  called  the  perfect  middle  has  led  us  to  mischarge 
the  Greek  verb  with  a  double  anomaly,  and  to  regard  what 
is  the  regular  and  legitimate  usage  in  two  cases  as  a  licen- 
tious exception.  When  a  scholar  trained  in  our  school 
Greek  grammars,  which,  little  as  they  tench,  contrive  that 
much  of  that  little  should  be  wrong,  falls  in  witli  such  a 
tense  as  eKTota,  etriropa,  \c\onra,  he  pronounces,  eitht^r  im- 
lucdiatoly,  or  after  vainly  trying  to  discover  what  be  would 
deem  an   appropriate  meaning  for  it,  that   it   is   the   perfect 


atlributed  to  the  Greek  Verb. 


as3 


iniiUlU'  itsctl  in  lien  of  the  perfect  active :  if  lie  Ims  not  very 
frefjuunt  occasion  for  committing  this  crrour,  this  may  be 
accounted  for  from  what  was  observed  above  concerning  the 
objective  use  of  the  perfect.  When  on  the  other  hand  he 
finds  a  perfect  of  the  passive  fomi  with  a  middle  significatiou, 
he  calls  this  a  »ise  of  the  perfect  passive  instead  of  the  per- 
fect middle.  That  even  learned  men  may  have  their  views 
of  the  Greek  verb  distorted  by  the  effect  of  their  e-arly 
inisinstruction,  appears,  to  take  an  instance,  from  Dr  Blom- 
fieWs  Glossary  on  the  Agamemnon,  v.  252,  where  he  says, 
vewy(TfX€vri :  participium  passivumy  sensu  acfJvo, — and  then 
proceeds  to  cite  similar  instances :  as  if  rrvuOdvofxai  had  any 
other  perfect,  or  a^  if  this  were  not  the  ordinary  and  legi- 
timate force  of  TreTrva/xai.  Few  things  have  been  more  inju- 
rious to  the  study  of  Greek  than  this  belief  that  the  ancient 
writers  had  a  kind  of  plenary  indulgence  to  substitute  one 
word  for  another  whenever  it  suited  their  fancy.  Having 
begun  by  drawing  up  an  incorrect  definition,  or  laying  down 
a  rule,  which,  if  not  totally  groundless,  is  at  least  tottering 
every  moment,  like  a  house  of  cards,  from  the  inoilcciuateness 
of  its  foundation  to  bear  it,  as  soon  as  we  meet  with  any- 
thing which  will  not  answer  to  our  definition,  which  will 
not  bend  to  our  rule,  or  enter  our  crazy  house  without 
upsetting  it,  we  call  this  an  example  of  lawless  caprice, 
and,  instead  of  correcting  our  definition,  or  examining  the 
grounds  of  our  nile,  we  pronounce  that  the  Greek  language 
delighted  in  such  or  such  an  anomaly-  We  might  just  as 
well  lay  down  that  every  plant  in  a  certain  border  is  a 
rose,  and  then,  when  one  of  them  coines  to  blossom,  and  the 
flower  turns  out  to  be  a  lily,  declare  that  it  is  a  lily  instead 
of  a  rose,  or,  in  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  our  grammars, 
pltirimae  rosae  Uliia  gaudent,  et  lUiaceum  habent  Jlorem. 
Whatever  be  the  object  of  our  study,  be  it  language,  or 
history,  or  whatsoever  province  of  the  material  or  the  spi- 
ritual world,  we  ought  in  the  first  instance  to  be  strongly  im> 
prest  with  tlic  conviction  that  everything  in  it  ia  subject  to 
the  operation  of  certain  principles,  to  the  dominion  of  certain 
laws,  that  there  is  nothing  lawless  in  it,  nothing  unprincipled, 
nothing  insulated  or  capricious,  though  from  the  fragmentary 
oature  of  our  knowledge  many   things  may  possibly  appear 


w 


On  certain  Tenses 


so.  In  short  all  knowledge,  of  whatsoever  kind,  like  every- 
tliing  eUe  that  is  to  be  stable  and  lasting,  must  l)e  founded 
on  faith  :  and  unless  wc  set  about  our  task  with  a  firm  per- 
suasion that  some  valuable  conclusion  is  to  be  arrived  at,  we 
shall  never  tind  out  anything  worth  linding. 

To  call  anything  an  exception  therefore  is  merely  in 
other  words  to  own  that  we  know  nothing  about  it :  and 
with  regarti  to  the  perfect  middle,  as  well  as  the  second  aorist, 
it  can  hardly  be  desirable  that  any  alteration  should  he  made 
in  our  grammars  to  increase  the  number  of  exceptions  in 
them,  and  to  make  them  still  more  irregular  than  they  are 
already.  It  might  be  jiossible  indeed,  even  without  terming 
either  form  of  the  jjerfect  in  «  an  anomaly  or  a  redundancy, 
to  class  them  both,  as  Thiersch  has  done,  under  the  same 
head.  But  at  all  events  it  must  be  aflmitted  that  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  ore  derivet)  from  their  theme  is  totally 
different;  and  so  are  their  characteristics.  One  of  them  ap- 
pears to  have  belonged  to  an  earlier  stage  of  the  language 
than  the  other;  for  the  theme  apjwars  in  it  under  what  may 
not  unreasonably  \x  regardeii  as  an  t>Ider  form.  In  several 
verbs  too  we  meet  with  iMjth.  So  that  perhaps  the  most 
judicious  course  is  to  range  them  side  by  side,  not  as  distinct 
tenses,  but  as  distinct  forms  of  the  same  tense,  to  whicli, 
from  the  desynonymizing  tendency  before  spoken  of,  distinct 
meanings  were  in   some   cases  allotted. 

In  like  manner  too  it  might  be  advisable  to  retain  the 
names  of  the  first  and  second  aorist,  the  first  and  second 
future,  in  the  passive  voice,  though  care  should  be  taken  to 
inculcate  that  they  again  are  not  to  be  considered  as  distinct 
tenses,  but  as  varieties  of  the  same  tense.  For  Bnltmann 
has  clearly  shewn  (Vol.  i.  p.  450)  that  the  secondary  forms 
in  this  instance  arc  not  independent  of  the  primary,  but  are 
merely  dialectic  modifications  of  them,  which  they  underwent 
for  the  sake  of  euphony.  That  the  second  aorist  passive 
docs  Dot  come,  as  it  is  traced  in  onr  grammars,  from  the 
second  aorist  active,  he  demonstrates  by  the  remarkable  fact 
that  TpETTto  is  the  only  verb  which  had  an  active  and  passive 
second  aorist  in  common  use:  and  even  of  Tpcirm  the  second 
aorist  active  was  almost  superseded  by  the  first.  So  that 
in  reality  the  second  aorist  passive  is   only  a  softer  form  of 


attributed  to  the  Greek   Verii. 


225 


the  other,  in  which  the  pcnultiina  of  the  hitter  was  niodific?d 
according  tu  tlie  rules  followed  tn  the  formatioa  of  the  second 
aorist  active.  Nevertheless  as  it  has  been  constantly  regarded 
and  spoken  of  under  a  distinct  name  from  the  time  of  the 
Greek  gratiiniariuuH  downward,  as  every  verb  which  has  this 
form  has  the  other  also,  and  as  the  analogy  of  the  second 
aorist  active  must  unquestionably  Iiave  been  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  Greeks  when  they  framed  it,  I  cannot  help 
thinking  that  it  is  best  in  a  matter  so  imiuaterial  as  a  name, 
when  that  name  entails  no  ulterior  consequences,  to  conform 
to  CHtablisht  usage.  ^*-  The  great  esteem  (says  Buttmaim, 
Vol.  I.  p.  371,  speaking  on  one  of  the  points  we  have  been 
discussing,)  which  one  cannot  but  entertain  for  whatever  has 
existed  for  centuries,  partly  fi-om  the  fear  lest  one  should 
oneself  have  to  retract  an  idea  of  ones  own,  after  having 
set  it  up  and  in  a  manner  forced  it  upon  others,  without 
however  Imving  viewed  it  under  a  sufficient  variety  of 
aspects, — partly  for  the  sake  of  offering  as  little  disturb- 
ance as  possible  tn  our  common  inheritance  of  knowledge,  and 
to  the  general  mutual  understanding  among  the  learned, — 
this  esteem  I  have  alwuvs  manifested  in  my  elententary  works, 
and  shall  continue  to  observe  the  same  course,  as  the  l>est 
counterpoise  to  the  prevalent  tendency  to  new-fashion  the 
whole  system  of  education  uxording  to  our  own  individual 
notions.'"  In  every  department  of  human  activity  indeed  the 
wise  and  the  good  will  strive  to  adhere  to  the  same  principle, 
will  feel  the  same  reverence  for  antiquity  ;  and,  while  they  are 
anxious  to  get  rid  of  whatever  is  wrong  or  vicious,  they  will 
be  scrupulous  not  to  do  more,  not  to  be  misled  by  fanaticism, 
or  that  selfcnnceit  which  makes  us  pamper  and  dote  on  the 
offspring  of  our  own  brain,  into  cliangitig  beyond  what  is 
necessary  for  the  establishment  of  right  and  of  truth-  But 
if  a  reverence  for  antiquity  be  in  all  things  seemly,  of  Phi- 
lology it  is  the  very  vital  principle.  Indeed  the  great  busi- 
ness and  oHice  of  Philology  is  to  preserve  and  uphold  the 
union  of  the  past  with  the  present  and  the  future,  to  se- 
cure the  records  of  the  human  mind  from  being  effaced  or 
disfigured  by  lime,  to  search  out  and  trace  the  pedigree  of 
all  our  thoughts  and  feelings,  and  to  set  forth  the  whole  his- 
tory of  mankind  as  in  a  map,  with  its  mountain-chains  of 
Vol.  II.  No.  4.  F  r 


226  On  certain   Tenses  of  the  Greek   Verb. 

religion  stretching  from  clime  to  clime,  its  streams  of  poetry 
descending  from  them  to  fertilize  and  beautify  the  vallies, 
its  gardens  of  art,  its  groves  and  forests  of  philosophy 
growing  along  their  banks,  and  all  the  varieties  of  custom 
and  manner  that  gather  and  settle  beside  them.  To  a  philo- 
loger  whatever  is  ancient  is  precious,  whatever  is  of  yesterday 
is  of  little  value,  except  so  far  as  it  is  connected  with  the 
past :  and  though  he  will  be  no  less  anxious  than  other  men 
to  remove  what  is  evidently  erroneous,  he  will  be  more  de- 
sirous than  others,  at  least  if  he  has  the  spirit  that  becomes 
him,  to  keep  as  much  of  the  old  house  as  may  be,  and,  unless 
it  be  decidedly  a  nuisance,  not  to  pull  down  any  thing  which 
can  tell  him  of  former  days.  It  is  full  time  however  to  close 
these  remarks,  which  at  first  were  merely  intended  to  convey 
a  few  hints  concerning  what  has  been  done  by  other  scholars 
with  regard  to  the  subjects  broacht  in  our  correspondents 
letter,  but  which  have  grown  much  after  the  fashion  of  ill 
weeds,  and  have  spread  far  beyond  the  space  I  meant  to 
allot  to  them. 


J.  C.  H. 


QUO  ANNI  TEMPORE  PANATHENAKA  MINORA, 
TA  MIKPA  HANAeiiNAIA,  CELEBUATA  SINT, 
QUAERITUR. 


Hoc  pro  explorato  habenius,  qiiinto  quoqiie  anno  ah 
AUieiiiensibus  celebrata  esse  magna  Faiiatheiiaea,  tribus  reli- 
quis  snnia  minora.  Et  ilium  quidem  annum  majorum  Pa^ 
nathenaeonim  Olympiadis  cyjiisque  tertinm  fuisse,  scriptores 
doceiit  et  tituli  (v,  Uoeckh.  Occonom.  Athen.  publ.  nd  titul.  I, 
T.  II.  p.  165.  ed.  german.),  ita  iit  minoribiis  Panathenaeis 
prinmii,  secundus,  et  quartus  Olympiadis  aniuiH  retinquatur. 
Neque  hoc  in  diibitationem  vocatur,  quod  Panathenaea  nmjura 
Hecatom))aeoDe,  id  est  primo  Atticd  anni  roense,  ad  finem 
vergcnte,  die  monsia  vigesimo  octavo,  rpiTtj  tpSivorTov,  ccle- 
brata  sunt.  Constat  hoc  quidem  teste  Proclo,  comment,  ad 
Platonis  'rimncum  p.  9  (Ta  yap  (i^yaKa  U,  rov  'E*otom- 
^ibii'ov  iy'tvcTo  Tpirtj  oVioitot)*  et  Schol.  in  Platon.  R.  P.  1. 
p.  ,%  1.  ed.  IJekker. 

Scd  minora  Panathenaea  Corsinius,  Fastorum  Atticorum 
T.  II.  p.  .'^.^7  sqq.,  eodcm  quidem  mcnsc,  scd  media  decade^ 
dccinio  fere  et  quarto  vel  qiiinto  Hee^tombaconis  die  acta 
esse  fatatuit.  Eamque  opinionem  tarn  idoneis  argumentis  tir- 
masAc  videbatur,  ut  etiam  prohatissinu*!^  nntiijuitatis  scrutato- 
ribus  cam  pursuaderet:  in  his  Uoeckhio,  qui  mihi  hcrum 
Btudiorum  dux  et  auctor  est.  V.  Oocon.  Athcn.  ])ubl.  tit.  I. 
T.  II.  p.  l()7.  Pt  ad  tit.  8.  T.  11.  p.  248.  cf.  C<)rp.  Inscript.  tit. 
I57.p.2.'>l:  In  qua  tamen  opinionc  jam  hoc  mirationem  f'acit, 
quod  cadem  8olennia  (nam  easdem  majorum  et  minorum 
Pniiathcnaconim  cacrcTnonia.s  fuisse  roinpertuni  halH-uui^i,  nisi 
qufxl  in  illis  omnia  majorc  appnrntu,  tenuiurc  in  his  ageban- 
tur)  oodcm  quidem  mensc  scd  diverKis  mcnsis  dicbus  acta 
owe   dicnntur.      Facilius  credercm   equidem,  si  diverHu   plane 


228 


Quo  anni  tempore 


anni  tcmpori  tribucrcntur.  Sed  Corsinius  ul  ita  statueret, 
lis  maximc  motu<i  est,  quae  a  Demostheiie  in  oratione  contra 
Timocratem  de  concione  qiiadam  ab  h^c  et  ejus  amicis  anno 
Olyiip-  '"VI,  4-  habita  narrantur.  Hanc  enim  concionem  in- 
dici  in  diem  HecaUimbaennia  duodecimum  iv\  t»1  tujv  Fla- 
vaQt}va'iwv  irpoipatrci,  perinde  quasi  festum  ipAum  proximc 
imminerct :  hinc  apparere,  Panathonaea  quarti  anni  Olympici, 
id  est  minora,  proximis  post  Hecatomb-  xii.  diebua  celebrata 
esse.  Aliud  argumentum  repetit  Corsinius  ex  solenni  Metoe- 
ciorum,  quod  Athenis  actum  scimtis  Ilecatombaeonis  d.  xvi. 
Id  cum  ad  menioriam  Atticorum  hominum  in  unam  urbem 
ex  agris  collectorum  institutum  esse  dicatur,  ab  origine  oon- 
junrtum  fiiisse  vidcri  cum  Panathenaeis,  imiversi  Athenarnm 
populi  sacris  Minervalibus.  At  hoc  argumentui.\  manifesto 
innrniiiis,  atque  ex  eorum  numero  est  quibus  fidem  pro  arbi- 
trio  et  habt>re  et  denegare  possis:  illud  ex  Timnt-ratea  oratione 
specie  qiitdein  gravius  est  et  accuratiua  dispicieiidum. 

Ilaec  autem  sunt*  quae  loco  illo  a  Demosthone  narrantur: 
quorum  nexiim  Corsinius  non  satis  expedivissc  videtur.  Ex 
lege  Atlieniensium  antiquiore  (Demosth.  in  Timocrat.  p.  7(M).) 
prima  anni  pr^tania  undecimo  die  de  legibus  vel  confirmandis 
vol  abrogandis  ad  populum  ferebatur.  Si  quae  lege»  his 
coinitiiti  abrogatae  esscnt,  prytanes  dc  ea  re  tiJi-  reXevTaiav 
Twv  Tpiwv  eicK\t}<jtwv,  id  est  ut  puto  tertiain  legitimarum 
concionum,  quot  in  Hccatumbaeonem  nicnsem  cadebant,  ad 
eum  fineiii  instituebant,  ut  nomuthetarum  judicium  de  his 
l^bus,  ne  iuconsuUo  mutarentur,  plebiscite  constitueretur- 
Nunc  ea  hominum  factio,  contra  quam  oratio  Timocratea 
scripta  e&t,  per  Epicratem  in  cumitiis  illis  xi  Hecatombaeonia 
die  habitis  plebiscitum  rogaverat*  ut  nomothetarum  collegium 
postcro  statim  die,  quo  etiam  propter  Cronia  solennia  cum 
populo  agerc  non  licebat,  in  comitiis  constitueretur,  id  scilicet 
ageuB,  ut  leges  suae  commodo  singulorum,  civitatis  detri- 
meiito  inventas  fiiciliiis  perferret,  sed  praelexens  id  propterea 
tantum  fieri  ut  to  tepd  $uryrat  nai  »)  dioiKf}<rK  'u:av^  yifr)Tat 
Kal  wi  Tivoi  evde'i  -rrpo^  ra  HtwaOt'juata  tiioiKr/Ot}  (p.  709).  Qua 
•X  re  ad  Panathenaeorum  tempus  coustituendnni  nihil  cfficitur 
nisi  hoc :  tertiis  oomitiis  si  nomothetae  instituti  fuissent,  tem- 
pus non  ampliuK  superfuturum  ftiisse,  ul  coram  hoc  judieum 
rnllegio   dc   apparatu    Panathenaeorum    iiislruendo    agcretur. 


Panafht!7iaea  foitwra  celebrata  aint. 


339 


Quid  autein  miruni,  etiamsi  PRnnthcnacn  en  anno  ante  diem 
tertiuni  exruntis  mcnsis  celebrnhantur,  rum  jtidicibus,  qui 
ex  ])lebiscito  tcrtioriim  comitiorutn  constitucliantur,  dc  iis 
celehrandiK  non  amplius  agi  potiiisse.  Nam  si  ea  comitia 
circa  trigesimutn  mcD»is  diem  habcbantur,  ut  in  argumenlo 
valdc  inccrto  dc  comitinlibus  prytaniarum  diebtis  statucrc 
licet,  Panatlienaen  jam  pcracta  erant:  scd  fac  ctiam,  circa 
TJgesimum  qtiartum  IK  en  tombaeon  in  legitiimim  eonim  tern- 
pus  fui&se,  ctiani  turn  in  apparntu  liornni  solcnnium,  qui 
paucis  diebus  non  potcrat  cunfici,  nihil  nmgnoperc  )>oterat 
mutari.  I'rofccto  id  ncgotium,  quo  plures  dies  sypcrcrani, 
eo  melius  accurari  p«8sc  videbatur:  nc  facile  intelligitur 
satis  credutas  poptduni  Atticum  pmcbuisse  aures  his  homi- 
nibus,  qui  ei  pcrsuadcre  studebant,  duodecimo  staciin  mcnnis 
die  nomothetfts  conslitucndos  esse,  qimnim  ex  legibus  et 
decrctis  hostiac  magis  opimac  ct  cnenae  lantiorea  et  splendidior 
apparatus  ad  Panathenaea  destinarenttir. 

Jam  »ti  hoc  argumento  non  amplius  uti  licebit  ad  Cor- 
fkinianam  ttententiam  defendcndam  :  prnferamuii  ea  quae  facere 
videntur  ad  earn  refellendom.  Prinm  loco  ponimus  quod  de 
Minervae  soleimibus  in  universum  dicit  Euripides  Heraclidis 
V.  777-  'A\X'  eirt  ffoi  (Afinervam  allfxpntur  chorus)  a-oXia- 
BvToi;  cffaicl  ti/i«  Kpaiyeraif  ovce  \ij6ei  firji'wi'  <pdt vay 
au-vpa-,  vetav  t  aotca't  •)(Ofm»  T€  /loKTra'i.  avefioeirri  dc  -yaff 
oypM  oXoXuyfxttfa  Tawuy^ioK  v^fo  •jrap&evwv  laK-^el  woowi* 
KftoToiaiv-  Sermo  est,  ut  intellexit  Ramesius,  de  statis  Mi- 
nervae sacris  in  acropoli  Athenarum  niagno  victimarum  appa- 
ratu  et  cantu  chororum  noctiirnaque  comessatione  celebratis, 
et  <l)$iidci  tnensis  die,  accurate  ah  Athenienstbus  obwrvftta, 
semper  redeuntibus.  Ovte  \tf6ei  (quae  lectio  praestat)  firjvwv 
tl)6tyfK  a.)it€pa,  nihil  significat  nisi:  neque  Atheniensea  latet 
aut  oblivione  opprimitur  inensiuni  cpBiva^  auepny  id  est  ex- 
tremae  decadis  dies.  Hunc  loci  sensuni,  credo,  etiam  Ilesychii 
locus,  cum  plenior  esset,  explanavit,  adductus  is  quidem  &ed 
noD  explicatus  a  Musgravio  T.  iii.  p.  438.  Locus  bic  est: 
Ip&taaf  afifpa'  tt/v  taTrifiavov  ToiTtjit  Tfti^t^viov  Xcyct 
T.  11.  p.  1504  Alberti.  Qui  cum  aperte  corruptus  sit,  Kims- 
leius  ut  sic  corrigatur  suasit:  ri]v  'ttrratiet'ov  rptTrj  'ifpofitjviav 
Xe'7fi.  Aug.  Jul.  Edm.  Pflugk,  qui  uuper  Kuripidis  trage- 
dias  cummentario  in  usuui   ^thularuni  instruere  coepit,  Vol.  !. 


2:w 


(^Ufi  on  Hi  ffwjiurr 


Sect.  IV.  p.  80,  saiiiorein  hiiic  loco  incilicinuni  cxspectut  a 
grammatico  Bekkeri  Anectlotorunt  Vol.  i.  p.  J(W>,  .12.  T^ito- 
M»jwi.*  eofjTt)  ayofiet'f}  'A0i/mv  tij  Tp'tTtjt  et  a!)  HarpuiTatiune 
p.  I7'>  en  Ijips.  t^itom»;I'i9.  AvKovpyos  fv  Ttji  Trepl  tiJv  ifopiay 
Tj/i/  TfHT})v  Tov  UTjvo^  TpiToiiit)i'ica  cKOAOt/f.  coKCi  C€  ycvtauat 
Tore  »;  A9tjvn.  XuTpw  ce  nal  'Vptroyeveiat'  avTi'iv  ip^at  ctd 
Tot/To  XtyeffOtu,  ri/v  qi/t;)i'  t»/  (TtXi/Vi;  i'om<^om<^^'/^>  Katlein- 
quc  fere  Photiiis  p.  O'o.s,  21.  e<l  Porson.  ct  Eiistathiu?  ad 
Hindis  1.  rv.  p.  5(n,  27  et  alios  locos,  cum  Tzetza  ad  Lycoplir. 
▼.  513.  Sed  quanqtiam  ex  his  satis  intellif;itur,  tertio  io-ra- 
fuevov  txijiw  die  caerenionias  quasdain  Minervales  statutas 
fuisBc:  non  tanien  intelli^itur,  f|Uomodo  d)dtvdSa  afx^par 
Euripidis  hue  trahere  potuerit  gramniaticos  ille,  ex  cujua 
copiis  liaec  Ilesychii  ^lossn  excerpta  est.  Naiii  He»ychiuin 
(fSivala  afxepai-  winjunxiHse  in  imam  notioneni,  neque,  ut 
sunt  qui  puteiu,  de  labentibiis  atque  iiitereuntibus  diebus 
poetici  sernionis  eo^tastw,  bnc  satis  evincitur,  quod  con- 
jnncta  haec  vocabula  (piitvus  auepa  I'xplicatioiii  nuae  prae* 
po^iiiit.  Hue  potiiis  advertenduin,  quod  praeter  tertium 
primae  decadis  diem  etiam  rp'trti  (pO'ivovrtK  aacris  Palladis 
Celebris  erat,  et  pro  natali  ejus  die  babebatur.  IjuToyeuftaj 
oTi  TptTT}  <p8'a'ovTOK  eTG^flf/,  Scltolia  Homer.  II.  viti.  sy. 
Quid  quod,  tfste  Proclo  iti  Schol.  ad  Hesiodi  0|)era  et  Dies 
V.  778,  Pbilochorus  Atticuruni  antiquitalum  peritissimus  W- 
aa^  Tac  Tpfli  id  est  ut  \idetur  rap  Tp'trm  dixerat  'lepiU  rrj^ 
'AOtjvaS'  Ac  quia  tertio  ante  cxitum  meusis  die  Minerva 
nata  ferebutur,  6vonaro9)'fpat;  ille  apiid  Atlienaeum  iii.  p.  p86, 
Panatheiiaea,  nullo  dtscriniine  i'acto  inter  majors  et  minora, 
yfv€0\tov  T^v  aXcKTopo^  Adijvav  uttepav  dicit.  Quibus  Mi- 
nen-alium  .sacrorum  tcmporibus  admodimi  firmatur  »ententia 
eorum,  qui  Minervani  in  religionibu.s  Atticis  iiiteriore  quo- 
dam  nexu  conjunctam  fuJAse  arbitrantur  cum  luna:  quae 
cum  Tp'tTr)  (bSivovruv  e  conspcctu  fere  evanuisset,  Tp'tTtj  tara- 
fih'ov  jam  inagis  con»picua  in  caelo  no\-o  lumiue  fuljfere 
iucipit  (fj  (TeXt'ivtj  ntro  avva^ov  TpiTtiia  (pnivfTai,  Tzetz.  ad 
Lycophr.  v.  519.  Ktymol.  M.  s.  v.  T/airoTeVeca).  Sed  ne  ad 
religiones  explieandns  abcrrcmus:  ex  iis  quae  monita  sunt 
intelli;»itur,  HeRyehianiim  Kx'um  nobis  tanquaui  fraj^meii  ple- 
niuris  interpretation  is  siipcressr,  sivc  bicus  in  line  truncatufi 
est   et   integrior  fuil;  ov  t^v  ttnufievov  Tpirtiv  ij  rpirofirtpi^a 


Pannihefinea  minora  ceU^aia  tint. 


S3l 


\eyei,  aWa  ttjv  (pB'tyovTo*;,  sive  inedius  discerptiis  ct  ita 
rcstituendiis :  r^v  (jtO'ivuvTo^  Tpirrjvt  ov  ce  Tt}v  'lara/ievov  Tpt- 
Totitjv'tia  \eyet. 

A  divcrticulo  llesycliiani  loci  atl  Euripidem  rcvcrtcntcs 
hoc  ad  nustrom  rem  inde  cxpiitavimus,  qiicxl  Minorvoc  wlen- 
nia  in  acropoli  Athcniiriini  accuratn  quadnm  observationc 
(pBiva^t  r'luepn,  U\  est  ut  vidctur  tjO(t^)  <p$iv0t>T(Kt  ngi  solita 
esse  tradit.  Jam  iit  lulicns  conccsscrim,  q\iovis  tcrtio  die 
mcnsis  cxeuntis  caercmonins  qiiosdam  Minen'ac  oblissc  sacer- 
dotcs  Atbcnicnscs:  woXvButok  tamon  Tl^a  et  -^ofnov  uoX-rral 
ad  spkn<lidiorn  sacra,  id  est  ad  Panathenaca  coHum  meoftifi 
die  celcbrata,  rcferri  dcbcbunt.  Verum  hinc  ctiaiii  colligere 
licebit,  semper  hoc  die  acta  esse :  eertc  si  haec  soli-nnia  ple- 
runique  fteaoiivr<K  firivo^j  et  quitito  demuiii  aiuu)  ^dti/u^t  ilia 
^U€pifi  iibire  moris  erat:  oinnoiii  vim  loci  infringi  fateberis, 
Idemque  fere  scntire  video  Lobeckium  Aglaopliamo  p.  435. 

Furtius  tainou  argumentiim  extremae  diisputatioiii  rescr- 
vaviiiius«  titiiluin  dico,  quo,  quuntum  ex  BepfiartKM  [wr  ali- 
(]nod  ti'mpus  ad  jiublicos  redittis  rediiiulaverit,  computatur, 
editum  a  Hocxkluo  Oet'oii.  pnbl.  T.  \i.  p.  2if).  Corp.  Iiiscript. 
tit.  157.  Hoc  cum  sacriHcia  stata  eo  quo  se  cxcipti^bnnt 
ordine  enuincreiitiir,  Panalhenaca  reccnsontur  post  sacrum 
Pocis.  Paci  Athcnicnscs  eodem  llecatonibaeonift  die  lita- 
bant,  quo  Synoecesia  sivc  Metoccia  celcbrabant,  sexto  decimo. 
Schol.  Aristoph.  Pac.  1 01 7-  Mctoecia  celcbrata  esse  lleca- 
tonibaeonis  die  sexto  dcciino,  etiani  Plutarchus  Thesco  e^p. 
24.  aftirmat.  Haec  igitur  Panalhenaca  nullo  niodo  cadere 
possunt  in  dien^  Hecatomb,  qiiartum  vel  quintiim  dccimum, 
sed,  cum  etiam  .\mmonis  nacriticium  inter  l*acis  solenne  et 
Panathennea  interponatuTf  ultimac  niensi.s  dccadi  tribucuda 
erunt.  At<|ui  haec  Pannthenaea  minora  sunt,  euiu  ea  lituli 
pars  ad  Nicocratcni  archoutem,  cujus  nomcn  praescribitur,  id 
est  ad  Olympiadis  cxi  annum  quartuui  pertineat.  Fit  con- 
clusion etiam  minora  Panathcnaea  ultima  mensis  decade,  eodem 
mensis  tenqiure  quo  nmjura,  esse  celcbrata. 

Hoc  loco,  cjuanquant  jam  ad  metam  disputationis  decucur- 
rissc  nobis  videnuir:  intelligimus  tamcn  imperiectum  a  pie- 
risque  habitutu  iri  hue  negotium,  nisi  etiani  contra  emu  sen- 
tentiam  disputaverimus,  ex  qua  minora  Panathenaea  alii  plane 
inenst,  Thargetioni,  attrihuimtur:   prae»ertim  cum  cam  nuper 


335 


Quo  iitmi  tempore 


(lefeiiderit  et  resuscitaTcrit  quudauiinoilu  H.  F.  Clintonu», 
vir  iluctriuu  aeque  atque  iiicurrupta  JutUcii  sanitate  coiispj- 
CUUB  (Fastis  Hellenicis  p.  .SS5.  p.  346  ed.  latioae).  Haec 
sententia  cU'rivatiir  a  PrtK'lo,  (rominentatore  Ptatunis,  adoptata 
est  a  IVIfursiu,  Panatlienuicu  c.  f>,  iinpugnata  et  denerta  a  Pe^ 
titO)  Legil)UH  Atticis,  et  Corsiniu^  de  quo  dixinius.  At  pri- 
muu)  dicendum,  quid  Prnclus  censueril,  et,  tjufxl  nun  ininuit 
necessarium,  cur  ita  censiierit.  Platonis  Republica  cum  Ti- 
maeo  et  Critia  eo  vinculo  continetur,  ut  Socrateii,  qui  dialo- 
gum  in  Republica  expressuni  Timaeo  et  Critiae  Hornmcra- 
lique  enarravit,  pustridie  \\oa  viros  narraiites  et  disaerentea 
audiat«  utque  qui  pridie  in  hoc  scrmonum  convivio  a  Soerate 
laute  except!  fueriut  {^anunovis)^  uunc  vicissini  eum  csci- 
piant,  e<rTta'To/>ey  fiant.  V.  Platon.  Tiinaeuni  ab  in.  At 
serniones,  qui  in  llepublica  a  Socrate  cum  Timaeo  et  Critia 
comDiunicantur,  ub  ipso  et  atiis  hnbiti  dicuntur  pridie  ejus 
diei  quo  narraiitur  (V.  exordium  libri  I  de  Rcpubl.  KaTe^*iv 
ySsi).  Atque  habiti  Kiiguntur  In  sermones  in  Piraeeo,  cum 
Bendideoruni  sutenne  prinium  ah  Athenieiisibus  uo  luco  cele- 
brarctur.  llendidea  uulein,  Proclus  testntur  consensu  rttfv 
ircpt  Tuiv  eopTwv  ypa^/avrwv  poni  Thargelionis  die  none 
decimo  (Ad  Timaeum  p.  !>):  quaiiquum  idem  alio  lo  (ad 
Timaeuni  p.  a?)  ex  Aristotelia  Kbodii  seutentia  ea  vigesimo 
Thargelionis  die  ponit.  Igitur  Timaei  et- Critiae  sermoneti 
cadunt  in  diem  Thargelionis  vigesimum  prtuium  vel  scfundura. 
Nunc  Plato  eodem  die  festuiii  diem  Alinervae  agi  narrut, 
ipsisquc  his  senuonibus  ad  vetusta  Athenorum  tempora  &pec- 
tantibus  ti^v  0€of  a/xa  ew  Tr}  iravrfyvptt  vult  celebrari  (Timaeo 
p.  21).  Convenire  dicuntur  ii  sermones  rp  TrnpovtTTj  ri/s 
0eov  Svcrt^  (Timaeus  p.  26).  Jam  sumitur  hacc  sacriHda, 
quae  panegyri  frequentantur,  esse  Panathennca.  Panathe- 
naea  autem  niajora  cum  notissimum  fuerit,  Hecatonibaeonis 
Tpifrj  airtoifTOi  atttt  esse:  supersunt  minora  Panathenaea, 
quae  ex  hoc  ipso  argiimentorum  ncxu  collcctum  est  in  ulti- 
mam  Thargelionis  decadem  incidisse.  Nullam  aliam  ob 
causam  nisi  ex  hac  ratiocinatione  Proclum  de  Panathenae- 
onim  tempore  ita  statuiKse,  ut  liquido  apparcat,  adiicribam 
locum  ex  commentario  in  Timaeum  p.  <J.  ^tiKoi  Se  ex 
TovTiiiy  eicrt  «ai  o*  ^(pOfOi  TWf  Sta\oyiitv  rip,  Tf  IIoX*t€mis 
nat    Ttw   '\\uaiov,   t'lirep   i;   fxev    tv   tok    PMEiwioeiOiv    vtronftTat 


°anathenaea  minora  celehrata  innt 


388 


Toir  ev    Xletpcuet   ofMVfxeyoKt  o  oe  er  r^  cj^fh    '^^i'    ^vdt6eiu>r. 
(Qutxl    ey  rfi   efr/s  dicit,  non    satis   accurate  facit :  sc(l    hex: 
pnietermitto)   6rt    yofj    rd  ec   Tletpaiel    Uev^i^eta    ttJ    ifvaTrj 
eiri    oucaTtf    Bajo^i;Xtan'Of,    ofAoXoyotKriv   o'l   irfjoi    twv  eopruv 
ypa^ayr€<:    mcTTf    o    'V'lfiaio^    vwoKeoiTo   av    Ttj    ecxaot 
TOW   auTov  fitjvo^.    (i    o«,   wy   6^179   pr^tjaeTat,   xal    Xlava&yj- 
vaia>v  ovTOiv  vwoKetTaiy  d^Xov  on  ra  /xucpd  tjit  TaZra  Ilawi- 
0itvQia.   TO.   yap   fxtyaXa   tov    ExaTofx^taivoi  eyevero   Tpirrj 
awtovTo^f   UK    Kat    tovto  toi^  tfiirpouBev   laTopyjrat.      Hicne 
wnno  est  homitiis  certis  documcutis  de  tempore  Paiiatheiiae^ 
orum  niinuruui  edocti,  un  ratiueiimutis  et  couiputantis  ?     In- 
telligitur    uutein    hujus   ratiocinutitinis    cardinein   verti    in    illis 
Tiniaei  UkIh   de  tuicrifit-io   et  jMiiegyri    Minervae.      At  quod 
noH   cogat   tit  haec  suinanm^t  fuiHse  Paiiathenaea,   in    Platone 
nihil  iiivenio.     Sed   Procluu  uon  primus  haec  sil)i  fiiixit,  sed, 
antiquiores    aequitur    cunimtrntatores,  qui   argumentu  jam   e<i 
tDcxIo  composuerant.     Nam  ad  locum  de  panegyri  Minervae 
ProcluH  (p.  a  1 7.)   haec   annotat :  uxi   ye  fiify   to    \\at'a9iiimta 
xoTff    Bei/cidfjow  ♦iireTo,   Xeyovtrtv  o\    vTrofxv7}naTi(iTaU  Jd 
est,  ii    ipsi  coinmentutores,    qunrum    cnnclusiunculas,   fallaces 
ut  opiDor,  supra  jam  suas   fecerat   I'roclus.      At   pergit    Pro- 
(dus:   caj     A^icTOTf \ij9   o    Pootof   lOTopei'  xa   ftev  ev   Hei- 
patfi     \^^l•vic€ca    Ttj    f'lKaot     tov     SapyrjXmuw     €wtn^\eia6ah 
tutaOat  de  ray   Trepi  tiJf    A&rfviiy  eopTa^  (ita  scrihendum  ; 
ed.  Basil,  habel   eopTav^   merum   sphalma).      Concedo,    Aria- 
totelem  hunc  ea  non  ex  interprelatione  Platomcorum  locoruin, 
sed    ex   fide    monuinentoruni    rcferre    videri.      Sed    quid    haec 
ad    PaiiDtheiiaea,    de   quibus    nihil   est    in  verbis    Aristotelis, 
quanquam  illis  in  eum  sensuni  detortis  sive  a  Proclo  sive  ab 
antiquiurihus  Platonis   couinieiitatoribus.      luio  verba   ilia:   at 
irtpi  Tijv  'Adqmir  foprai  haud  satis  apte  de  Panathenaeorum 
solenni   dicta    esseut.       Potius    ea    respicere    putabiinus    (ut 
putuvit  Petitus)   ad  duo  sacra  Minervae  Atticae,  quae  certis 
testimoniis  constat  sub  bos   Thargelionis  dies  celebrata  esse, 
eaque  inter  se  eo  conjuneta  quod  iitrumque  ad  antiquum  Mi- 
nervae signuni   in  arce  Athcnarum  spectat.      Callynteria    dico 
et  Plynteria.     Ilia  Photio  teste  Thargelionis  die  nono  deeimo 
agebantur,  haec,  Plutarcbo  aucCore,  ejusdem  mensis  die  vige^ 
simo  quinto  (iKTri  (hOivoimK)^  si  Photio  major  fides,  vigesinio 
nono    0evT€pa    KpOivovrw).       F<a    PIvnteria,  sancte  nee   sine 
Vol.  n.   No'.  ».  Or. 


334 


\Tto  (tnn\  tempore 


feetivo  apparatu  ab  Atheniciiftibus  celebrata,  proprius  certe 
absunt  ab  eo  tempore,  quod  Plato  designat,  quam  Pttnathc- 
naea,  siquidem  hacc  ruxitc  Ilccatombauoni  vindicuvimus.  Po- 
test in  dissdisu  Plutarchi  et  Photii  utriuRquc  aucturitati  tantum 
detrahi,  ut  id  solenne  vigesimo  primo  vcl  secuiido  Thargelionis 
die  ponatiir,  id  est  tcrtio  post  Rcndidea,  undevigesimo  vel 
vigesimo  die  acta. 

Sed  haec  utut  sunt*  nam  de  Plynterionim  tempore  et 
sacro  illo  Minervali  quwl  a  Platonc  significatur  nihil  affirmo, 
hoc  satis  demonstratuni  puto,  Prodi  de  Panathenaeis  scnten> 
tiam  non  effcctam  esse  nisi  ex  interprctationc  Platonicorum 
locoruDi.  Et  plane  disscntienduin  mihi  est  ab  iis,  qui,  cum 
Proclo  Platonem  tanquain  fundum  ejus  sententiae  subtra- 
xerint,  banc  tanien  sententiam  nuUo  tibicinc  fultam  per  ae 
stare  posse  autumant.  Sed  etiain  magis  mihi  in  toto  hoc 
arguinento  notandi  veniunt  ii,  qui  Flatonicos  de  Kepublica 
sermones  a  Proclo  Panathcnaeis  attribui,  et  Bendidca  ab  co 
cum  Panathcnaeis  misccri  ct  confundi  scribunt.  Quod  niultos 
facere  video.  Hie  error  soli  Scholionim  in  Platonis  Kempub- 
licam  scriplori  (p.  3,  .'I  Bekker.)  imputandus  est,  qui,  I'uin  a 
doctioribus  gramniatiuis  disputata  truncaret  ct  plane  pcrvcr- 
terct,  plcraque  u  melioribus  scriptoribus  de  Bendideis  narrata 
Panathcnaeis  miuoribus  tribuit. 

His  in  examen  vocatis  pauca  sunt  quae  adjiciam.  Epi- 
cratis  plebiscitum,  de  quo  in  Timocratea  oratione  dicitur, 
supra  cum  Corsinio  Olympiadis  cvi  quarto  anno  assignavi- 
mus,  et  Panathenaea,  quae  id  attingit,  propterca  minora 
dixiuius :  quanquam  nihil  tpsi  ad  nostrani  sententiam  stabi- 
licndam  hinc  derivavimus.  Nihil  igitur  nos  cogit,  ul  Clintuno 
obloquamur,  qui  id  plebiscilum  priori  uuno  Iribui  posse  cou- 
tendit  ejus,  quo  oratio  habitaait:  ita  ut  oratio  quidem  Timo- 
cratea locum  8Uum»  i.  e.  OI.  cvi  a.  4.,  teneat,  plebiscitum 
autem  in  tcrtium  annum  renioveatur.  Prubabilis  tamen 
etiamnum  antiquior  scntcntia  mihi  hal>etur.  Nam  cum  pie- 
biscitum  illud  ineunte  anno,  Heeatombaeone  mense,  factum 
sit:  satis  multum  temporis  eodem  anno  ad  litem  instituen- 
dam  superorat,  ncque  uUa  morae  ab  aliis  injectae  mcntio 
exstat,  quae  nos  moveat,  ut  litem  in  sequentem  annum  pro 
tractam  putcmus. 

Nod    magis   Lysiae  loco  moveor,  'AttoAo^iw  ^lupo^ocio? 


Panathenaea  minora  celebrata  Hnt.  235 

p.  161.  6.  §  4,  ut  Panathenaea  minora  Thargelione  acta  mihi 
persuadeam.  Hoc  quidem  chorus  Pyrrhlchistarum  ad  Pana- 
thenaea minora  instructus  postponitur  comico  Dionysiorum 
ejusdam  anni  chore.  Sed  hujus  rei  causa,  quae  in  tempore 
solennium  quaeritur,  etiam  alia  poterat  esse.  Duae  statim 
in  promptu  sunt,  altera  quod  comicus  chorus  multo  majore 
sumtu  instruebatur  quam  Pyrrhichistae,  quod  ipse  orator 
nos  docet,  altera  quod  is  qui  causam  suam  orat,  comico  choro 
vicit,  Fyrrhichistis  certavit  tantum. 

Sic  repulsis  quae  contra  stare  posse  videbantur  argumentis 
repeteremus  summam  rationum,  quae  pro  nobis  pugnant,  nisi 
verendum  esset,  ne  satis  jam  tacdii  scrupulositas  nostra  legen- 
tibus  creaverit. 

C  O.  MiJLLEU. 


MISCELLANEOUS  OBSERVATIONS. 


L 

Death  of  Pachea. 

In  Niebuhr's  essay  on  Xcnophon^s  Hellenics  translated 
in  the  last  number  of  this  Museum,  there  is  an  allusion  to 
the  fate  of  Paches  (p.  495),  which  I  would  have  explained 
to  the  reader  if  I  had  remembered  from  what  source  it  was 
drawn.  But  the  manner  in  which  it  was  mentioned  led  me 
to  imagine  that  what  Niebuhr  had  found  was  something  till 
then  undiscovered,  and  thus  deterred  me  from  searching  for 
it  in  any  of  the  books  to  which  I  have  access,  and  still 
more  from  attempting  to  recollect  whether  I  had  before  seen 
or  heard  of  it.  Otherwise  it  might  possibly  have  occurred 
to  me  that  the  anecdote  is  mentioned  by  Schneider  in  a  note 
to  Aristotle''s  Polit.  v.  3.  My  attention  was  accidentally  drawn 
to  this  fact  by  a  remark  in  an  excellent  little  book,  Flehn^s 
LeshiacGf  where  Schneider  is  censured  for  giving  too  much 
credit  to  the  story.  Perhaps  I  cannot  better  make  amends 
for  my  oversight  than  by  laying  before  the  reader  the  original 
authorities  and  some  of  the  opinions  which  modem  critics 
have  exprest  upon  them.  The  passage  to  which  Niebuhr 
evidently  refers,  and  which  his  edition  of  the  Byzantine  Histo- 
rians had  recently  brought  under  his  notice,  is  an  epigram  of 
Agathias,  (57-  in  Niebuhr's  ed.  Anthol.  Gr.  Jacobs,  Tom.  iv. 
P-34.) 

EWaci?  TptiMKcupa,  koi  a  yapietura  Aojua^ti 
i/CTTi/i'  ii£v  irarpas  (peyyea  Aea^iaooi. 

oKKa  o    A6Tjvaitj<Tt  <tvv  oXKatrty  evOahe  KeXaa^ 
TttK  MiTt/Xfji^iay  yav  aXatra^e   Haj^i/s, 

Tav  Kovpav  aoUuK  rjpa<T<TaTOy  tws  oe  avveuvw^ 


Death  of  Pachee. 

TOt  Cfi  Kor    A'lyaioiO  fwov  vKarv  Xatrjua   <f>efj«<T0r}¥t 
Kcu  wort  Tav  KfKtvaav   Mo^^rtrrriav  cpafi€Ttjv' 

dafAtft  o    ay^^eKerrfy  ti\tTtjfiov<K  epya   rid-)^rrnKt 
Me<T<pa  fuv  <-t$  oXorji/  K^pa  avv^Xaffarttv. 

TOta  fJiiVy  u>  Ktyvpa,  veirovriKaTov'  ax^   o     eVi   iraTfMv 
rjKerov,  ev  d    avrqi  kvIc^ov  a-TrofpSifxeiittt' 

tv  o€  'TTotwv  a'rr6ra<r00v,  evtt  ^rorl  (rafta  erwevvoiv 
€vc€ToVy  «ff  KXetya^  fivatfua  tTao(ppo<jvya^' 

vfivev^tv  c    eTt  iravrts  Ofi6(ppova^  i^pwiva^y 
iraTpas  kvu  iroa'nav  trrffiara  Tt<xafji.eva%- 

Mr  Jacubit  remarks  on  tliis  epigram  (Animudv.  Vol.  tii.  I. 
p.  lis.),  Paches,  rujuR  ainc»ri*K  et  siippHeium  in  hoc  e]>igr. 
eoairaiKur,  missus  est  adversus  Mitvlenaens  anno  quiuto  belli 
Peloponnesiaci  Ol.  fls.  2.  Ejus  in  MitjIenaeiK  tractaiulis  le^ 
nitaCem  et  imxlerationeni  laudat  Thucyil.  in.  2H.  Cf.  Diodor. 
Sic  T.  I.  p.  515.  (xii.  5J.)  Nee  omnino  quidquain  est  apud 
historicos  quod  histnriae  in  hoc.  epig.  narratae  fidem  faciat, 
nisi  fortasse  quod  Aristoteles  tradit  PoHt.  v.  4.  (Schneid.  y.) 
belluua  illud  Mitylenactjrura  adversus  Atlienien&es  a  mulieribus 
cfTuvXi/poiv  originem  cepisse.  Re<'te  igitur  Keiskius,  p.  221), 
banc  lustoriani  ad  retercs  fabellas  amatoriaA,  quas  Milesias 
appellant,  referendam  esse  censet.  In  the  passage  referred  to 
Aristotle  «ay»:  Kal  trepl  MtTvX^vrjv  d«  e^  iwiKXiipwv  (jtokj&jk 
yevofxet'^-  ttoKKww  eyevcTo  apytf  icojcwr,  Kat  tov  iroXefiov 
Tov  irpoi  'Af^i]vaiov9f  ev  ^  Haj^i^v  «\a/3«  TifK  iroXiv  aUTWv' 
1\fio<PuyoVi  yap  Ttov  t-viropwy  tiw>?  «aTrtXnroi'ToS'  cwo  Bv- 
yaTtpu^i  6  irfpitMHTOeis  kui  ov  Xafiwv  Toiy  v'leaiv  avTov  Ao^- 
avcpos'  t)p^f  T^s  ffratrew^j  koI  tovc  A0rf yt^ovs  irapw^we^ 
irpo^evm  tov  t^-  TroXeois.  Schnddcr'^s  note  is:  Thucydides 
III.  2,  ubi  narrat  bellum  a  Pacliete  gestuin  et  Mitylenea 
capt&m  originem  referens  obiter  hoec  posuit.  koi  avrwv  Mt- 
TvXf/i'aiofi'  ioia  avcpev  Kara  trraffiv  vpol^evoi  'AOtjvaiwv  /x^vvTal 
yiyiHivraL  Toii  'A6tjvaioif!.  In  Agathiae  Epigr.  Analectoruin 
III.  p.  64.  narratur  Pachetem  in  anioreni  incidisse  duarum 
Mitylenaeariim  mulieruin,  Lamaxidis  et  Hellenidis,  quarum 
maritos  cum  occidis^et,  con  secum  abduxit,  deinde  ipse  ab 
iis  ocdsus.  Forte  hae  sunt  illae  ipsae  duae  eirUXiipoi  vir* 
gines  de  quibus  noater  narrat.  Mr  Plehn  in  the  work  above 
quoted,  {i.  (il,  observes:  Schneiderus  Agathiae  narration!  plus 
quam  par  eat  tribuerc  vidctur.     Merito  Reiskius  et  Jacobsiu» 


338 


Misceliatteous   ObnerDaiwna. 


historiam  illam  ad  veteres  fabellas  aniatorias,  Milcsianim  nomine 
appellatas,  referendum  esse  existiraant. 

If  I  venture  tn  interpose  a  word  in  this  discussion,  it 
is  certainly  not  because  I  attach  any  importance  to  the  qucB- 
tiou,  whether  the  story  in  Agatliias  is  anything  more  than 
an  idJe  fiction  arbitrarily  connected  with  a  historical  name. 
Few  unprejudiced  persons  will  think  either  much  better  of 
the  Athenians,  if  they  condemned  their  general  fnr  an  atro- 
cious crime  counmtted  for  his  own  private  ends,  or  much 
worse  of  them,  if  they  did  not  accept  his  public  fter\'icc«  as 
a  sufficient  defence  against  a  charge  of  misconduct  whicfi 
appeared  to  them  clearly  proved.  But  still  as  the  heliaviour 
of  the  Athenians  towards  Paches  has  been  made  a  ground 
of  severe  censure  on  them  by  some  writers,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  the  question  deserves  to  be  placed  on  a  right 
footing,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  none  of'  the  critics  whose 
remarks  I  have  quoted  have  done. 

In  the  first  place,  the  story  in  Agathias  certainly  does 
not  gain  the  slightest  degree  of  credibility  by  being  comjMirod 
with  the  fact  mentioned  by  Aristotle:  for  that  the  two  daugh- 
ters of  Timophanes  should  have  been  the  same  women  who 
became  the  victims  of  the  lust  of  Paches,  would  he  a  most 
extraordinary  coincidence,  which  it  would  be  arbitrary  beyond 
measure  to  assume  without  any  authority:  so  that  I  can  scarcely 
believe  that  this  was  Schneider''s  meaning.  On  the  contrary, 
it  would  be  very  easy  to  conceive  how  the  incident  mentioned 
hy  Aristotle  miglil  in  the  course  of  ages  f)c  combined  with 
the  violent  death  of  the  conqueror  Paches,  and  so  worked 
up  into  the  tale  on  which  the  epigram  is  founded,  which 
would  not  l>e  a  stranger  perversion  of  history  than  we  find 
frequently  occurring  in  Malalas.  But  this  bare  possibility 
ih  not  in  it-telf  an  argument  sufficient  even  to  raise  a  prc- 
anmption,  and  surely  will  not  justify  us  in  pronmmcing  the 
I^eshian  legend  to  be  no  better  than  a  Milesian  storj'.  The 
reasons  given  by  Mr  Jacobs  for  treating  it  with  contempt, 
arc  such  as  I  should  not  have  expected  front  an  intelligent 
critic.  I  lay  no  stress  on  the  public  conduct  of  Faehes, 
whom  Mr  Mitford,  not  certainly  without  reason,  brands  witli 
the  reproach  of  treachery  and  cruelty  :  because  it  does  not 
follow,  though  he  looked  upon  all  means  as  indifferent  in  the 


7th  ofFaches. 


239 


service  of  Oio  state,  that  lie  was  equally  I'ccklcss  in  his  private 
capacity.  But  on  the  other  hand  we  should  be  as  little  at 
liberty  to  presume,  that,  if  he  was  capable  of  being  transported 
by  the  heat  of  his  passions  into  an  outrage  against  humanity, 
he  must  therefore  have  been  a  monster  of  cruelty,  who  could 
find  pleasure  in  executing  a  commission  to  massacre  the  po- 
pulation of  a  whole  city  in  cold  blood.  We  do  not  want 
the  light  of  Profane  History  to  assure  us  that  this  would 
be  a  very  erroneous  inference.  No  conclusion  therefore  can 
be  drawn  as  to  lliis  point  from  the  character  of  Paches,  so 
far  as  it  is  known  to  us  from  history.  The  story  of  Agathias 
considered  by  itself  contains  no  improbable  circumstance,  un- 
less it  be  that  Paches  committed  two  crimes  of  the  same  kind. 
Otherwise  there  is  nuthitig  in  it  tliat  presents  any  appearance 
even  of  exaggeration.  It  sounds  like  a  simple  unvarnished 
narrative  of  a  fact  which  was  likely  to  live  long  in  the  re- 
collection of  the  Lesbians.  The  legitimate  course  therefore 
would  seem  to  be»  to  inquire  whether  this  fact  is  inconsistent 
with  any  other,  which  has  been  transmitted  to  us  on  better 
authority.  Mr  Mitford's  description  of  the  end  of  Pachea 
would  lead  the  reader  to  suppose  that  we  have  only  to  choose 
between  Agathias  and  Plutarch;  and  this  would  certainly 
reduce  us  to  a  painful  perplexity.  But  the  passages  to  which 
Mr  Mitford  refers  in  his  margin,  do  not  contain  quite  so  much 
as  he  has  stated  in  his  text.  Neither  in  the  life  of  AristideB, 
c.  26,  nor  in  that  of  Nicias,  c.  (>,  where  he  alludes  to  the 
death  of  Paches,  does  Plutarch  mention  the  specific  charge 
brought  against  him.  This  deficiency  Mr  Mitford  has  sup- 
plied by  relating  that  Paches  was  "called  upon  to  answer 
a  charge  of  peculation.""  This  term  is  undoubtedly  well 
adapted  to  raise  a  strong  suspicion  of  sycophancy  on  the 
part  of  the  accusers,  and  of  levity  and  ingratitude  *)ri  the 
part  of  the  judges,  who,  perhaps  on  very  slight  evidence, 
were  excited  by  '*  the  virulent  orators  who  conducted  the  ac- 
cusation" against  the  honest  plnins|H*aking  soldier,  and  by 
their  credulity  **  so  raised  his  indignation,"  that  he  stabbed 
himself  to  the  heart  in  their  presence.  Plutarch  however  only 
relates  the  issue  of  the  cause:  the  rest  of  the  scene  is  from 
the  hand  of  Mr  Mitford.  I  do  not  mean  by  this  to  impute 
to  him  a  wilful  fabrication,  hut  only  an  oversight,  into  which 


940 


Miftcelfanetyits  Ohaervaiioruf. 


he  was  betrayctl  by  tlic  natural  desire  of  priMluciiig  an  ad- 
ditional illustration  of  his  favorite  thesis.  Hut  when  a  history 
is  written  for  the  sake  of  a  certain  theorj",  there  is  always 
a  danger  that  the  theory  will  every  now  and  then  become 
the  foundation  of  the  history. 

A  different,  hut  perhaps  an  equally  instructive  way  of 
writing  a  romance  on  the  subject,  would  have  been  to  sup- 
pose, that  in  the  intoxication  of  his  militiU'y  succesii  Paches 
had  given  way  tn  a  strong  temptation,  and  had  been  led  to 
tarnish  the  honour  of  a  glorious  Hfe  by  a  base  and  cruel 
murder:  that  he  returned  to  Athens  to  receive  the  reward 
of  his  services,  but  was  followed  by  the  unhappy  women 
whose  peace  he  had  destroyed :  that  in  the  presence  of  the 
assembled  people  they  disclosed  and  proved  liis  guilt:  and 
that  when,  instead  of  congratulation  and  applause,  he  heard 
notlung  but  the  accents  of  horror  and  indignation  from  all 
around  him,  shame  and  remorse  and  the  avenging  Furies 
stung  him  to  madnest;,  and  he  turned  Ids  vietoriuus  sword 
against  his  own  breast. 

This  would  indeed  have  been  a  romantic  adventure  for 
an  Athenian,  or  any  other  court  of  justice.  Yet  it  muat 
be  remembered  that  the  circumstance  wliich  sounds  most  ro- 
mantic in  it,  is  that  which  belongs  equally  to  the  other 
version  of  the  story;  and  I  will  only  add,  that  if  the  latter 
be  the  true  one,  if  an  Athenian  ofHcer  in  the  Peloponnesian 
war  was  unable  to  support  a  verdict  given  against  him  on 
a  charge  of  peculation,  and  was  excited  by  it  to  fall  on  his 
own  sword,  the  case  affords  a  new  illustration  of  a  common 
remark,  that  things  sometimes  liappen  in  the  world,  which 
would  be  thought  too  improbable  for  a  romance. 


C.  T. 


Xf.nophofi'a  Greek  HtJttorp.  241 

ir. 

On  the  Title  of  Xenophon'a  Greek  History. 
Frow  thr  Gbbhan  op  L.  Dtndorf.* 

^lEBUijE  was  induced  to  consider  Xcnophoa^s  Greek 
history  as  compounded,  against  the  author's  intention,  of 
two  works  written  at  diiTcreut  times,  namely,  the  conclusion 
Fof  Thucydides,  and  the  Hellenics,  by  arguments  partly  de- 
rived from  internal,  partly  from  external  evidence;  on  the 
latter  of  which  I  purpose  to  offer  a  few  remarks.  In  the 
first  place,  Niebuhr's  statement  that  according  to  the  Biblio- 
ther.a  Graeca  all  the  seven  books  are  in  the  Aldine  edition 
entitled  Paralipomena  Thucydidui,  rests  ujMin  an  error,  the 
correction  of  which  he  himself  would  have  been  the  first  to 
approve.  The  words  of  Fabricius  both  in  the  edition  of 
1707  (Vol  11.  p.  74)  and  in  that  of  Harles  (Vol.  ni.  p.  y)  are: 
Hos  Ithros  Xenophoniis,  sub  Hiuio  Paraiipomenony  Thucy- 
didi  Graece  suhjerit  Aldus  antw  1502.  Fol. :  and  so  I  find 
elsewhere  the  Latin  title  of  that  Aldine  edition  stated  thus, 
Xenophontis  omissa,  quae  ei  graeea  gesta  appetlantur,  with- 
out any  mention  of  the  name  of  Thucydidcs.  And  even  the 
word  TrapaXenronei/a  can  only  be  in  the  titlcpagc,  and  not 
in  the  superscription  itself;  for  this  in  the  complete  Aldine 
edition  of  Xcnophon  dated  in  152.'j  is  Zevotpwrro^  'EXXfjifixw 
trpairtiv :  and  it  is  evident  that  the  sheets  containing  the 
Hellenics  in  this  edition  are  the  same  wliich  were  used  in  the 
former  one,  as  even  ^vithout  being  able  to  consult  the  latter 
I  infer  both  from  the  two  blank  leaves  between  the  Anaba:»is 
and  the  Hellenics,  while  in  other  places  there  is  a  great  par- 
simony of  paper,  and  also  from  the  printer"**  marks :  for  the 
first  leaf  of  the  supplement  to  the  Aldine  edition  of  I5<U, 
which  was  afterwards  publishefl  separately,  and  contains  Ge<- 
inistus,  Herodiun,  and  the  Scholia  to  Thucydides,  has  the 
mark  t}  ii,  while  the  last  leaf  of  tlie  Hellenics  of  1525  is  marked 
17;  and  the  Hellenics  in  the  edition  of  1525  also  begin  with 

*  ThcK  remwlu  are  printed  in  the  A'tfu«  JahrbMher  fur  PKUotogie  uaH  Pida- 
gogtk  for  1R33,  Yal.  i.  p.  254,  and  as  thi-y  cotiuun  a  torreciiotii  of  an  crroneout  state- 
ment made  in  an  e«u]r,  a  tramJation  of  which  ap]>caied  in  our  iMt  number,  we  have 
thought  it  right  Id  laj  them  befhie  oar  re*den. 

Vol.  II.  No.  4.  H  ii 


342 


Miscelianeous  OhBervntioiW' 


a  blank  leaf,  which  is  followed  by  one  marked  a  ii,  although 
the  Aoalmais,  which  precedes  it,  concludes  with  one  marked 
L  iiii*.  Conaequently  of  the  title  Paralipomena  ThucydidU 
one  half  is  destitute  of  authority,  and  the  other  half  is  con- 
fined to  the  titlepage,  while  the  superscription  of  the  book, 
which  doubtless  approaches  more  closely  to  the  reading 
of  the  manuscript,  does  not  agree  with  it.  Nevertheless 
Niebuhr's  conjecture  that  Aldus  took  the  name  of  Parali- 
pomena from  some  manuscript,  is  completely  confirmed  by 
the  collation  of  Victorius,  in  which  there  is  noted  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  first  book  Hei-odtwin-oy  ira^KiXci'Tro/icwi  EX- 
\riViKwy,  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  reXo?  Tcoy  Hcvof^wKTo? 
irapfxkenrofuvayv,  Niebuhr  thought  that  this  irapaKairoticva 
together  with  the  name  of  Thucydides  (supposing  that  both 
words  were  supported  by  manuscript  authority),  was  the 
original  title  of  the  first  two  books,  only  misapplied  by 
being  extended  to  all  the  seven :  on  the  contrary,  I  am 
convinced  that  it  was  only  invented  at  a  very  late  period, 
probably  from  a  remembrance  of  the  Paralipomena  of  the  Old 
Testament,  by  some  one  who  considered  the  whole  work  in 
connexion  with  Thiicy<iides,  and  perhaps  with  Herodotus 
also,  as  forming  a  IxKly  of  Greek  history,  which  Geuiistus 
carried  down  to  the  destruction  of  Greece  at  Chafronea. 
Hence  Aldus  in  the  preface  to  his  Thucydides  gives  the 
same    name    to    the    work   of    Gemistus,    although    iu   his 


*  That  Dlndtnf  ii  ptrfeedy  riffht  in  hin  notion  thkt  the  Hellenics  in  the  Aldine 
Xenophori  of  \b2&  were  not  printed  for  that  edition,  but  were  transferred  to  it  from  that 
of  1M>3^  which  must  probably  have  hunj;  on  band,  and  in  which  it  funned  a  p*ri  of  ibe 
tame  volume  with  tiemifttus,  HcFudian,  and  the  Scholia  on  Thucjdidi?,  a  proved  to\ 
the  eye  by  the  colmir  of  the  paper,  by  the  shape  of  the  typc«,  by  the  ouinbtT  <it'  lines  in  i 
a  page  {hh  instead  of  A4],  and  the  width  of  the  tpaces  between  them.  In  all  these  re-  i 
tpacta  the  Hellenics,  with  ihe  exception  of  one  or  two  leaves  that  are  reprinted,  diftcr 
from  th«  real  of  the  volume  in  which  they  arc  found,  and  ajcrcc  with  that  from  which 
they  have  been  taken.  Owing  to  this  a  complete  copy  of  the  volume  publiisht  in  IMS 
appears  to  he  a  rarity  :  at  least  Dindorf  had  only  seen  one  that  wanted  Ihe  Xmnphon  : 
and  this  i*  all  that  is  found  io  the  Bodleian  catalogue,  or  in  the  library  of  the  tlni- 
venity  of  Cainbridfte,  or  In  that  of  Trinity  College,  though  the  latter  is  very  rich 
in  nrcck  Aldusca  since  the  bequests  it  has  received  from  l>r  Raine  and  Professor 
Dobree,  whn  took  frreai  pains  in  collecting  them.  When  these  Imperfect  copies  were 
tallied,  Asalanus  pretijit  a  new  titlcpage  to  them,  and  on  the  reverse  of  il  he  tella  the 
rculer,  fuOtf  Xenophontiji  opera-,  turn  Taf>a\»i-ir<i{t»ira  turn  c\\t)viadi  a  Grafcis  aypel- 
lata,  in  hunc  locum  (  Aldus )  inchuertit.,  nm  tanijuam  avuUwm  mtmbrum^  cnm  totum 
Xenophontcm  anittercmus^  ijwui  sua  corpori  conjungvndum  putacimu*. 


Xenophori's  Greek  Hufwr^. 


S43 


edition  he  prefixes  to  it  the  title  of 'EXXr/wKa :  Eram  da~ 
turujt  (be  says)  una  cum  Tkurydide  to  t«  Hevo^ftJirros  koX 
W\ridw¥o^  Ve^KTTov  wapaXtnrofitt'a :  sed  qma  non  haheham 
minimum  tria  exemplaria,  distulimtu  in  aliud  tempua. 
With  re^rd  to  Xcnophon,  no  grammariaa  who  cites  the 
Hellenics  gives  the  naine  of  raralipomena  either  to  the  en- 
tire work,  or  to  the  first  books;  and  the  earliest  of  them» 
AtheTiiPus,  cjuotes  that  which  now  posses  for  the  first  book 
of  the  Hellenics,  oji  such.  This,  and  what  Dioilorus,  xiii. 
42,  says  about  Xcnophon's  history*  makes  it  very  improbable 
that  Marcellinus,  who  is  unquestionably  a  writer  of  a  late 
date,  tihould  have  been  acijuainted  witli  n  different  name 
and  division  of  that  work ;  or  that,  when  in  his  Life  of 
ThucyJides  lie  stated  tSl  rfe  tu>x'  aXAwf  e^  vtmv  irpayfiaTa 
avav\tjpoi  o  re  BfoirowToy  *cnl  o  ^vo<pfvt>,  oh  ffwa-rrret  Ttjv 
'V^XifnKtjv  'uTTopiaVj  he  meant  anything  more  than  thai  its 
contents,  not  its  outward  divisions,  consisted  of  two  parts. 
But  although  the  external  evidence  which  Niebulir  has  ad- 
duced in  support  of  his  opinion,  seem,s  to  me  to  have  no 
weight,  yet  any  person  who  considers  the  internal  proofs  as 
convincing,  is  still  at  liberty  to  hold  that  the  Hellenics  were 
-written  at  different  times,  and  even  with  different  objects, 
since  it  has  not  been  shewn  that  Xcnophon  himself  pub- 
lislied  this  work,  which  wa-s  not  completed  till  a  very  lalo 
period  of  his  life. 


III. 


On  Englhh  PreteriteJi  oftd  GefUHves. 

In  the  first  volume  of  this  Museum,  pp.  654 — f>6<), 
in  the  course  of  some  remarks  on  the  form  of  certain  En- 
glish preterites  and  participles,  it  was  shewn  that  tlie  ancient 
and  modem  orthography  had  varied,  and  a  return  to  the 
former  mode  of  spelling  was  recommended.  In  confirmation 
of  those  remarks  the  following  passages  may  likewise  be 
noticed,     llask  in  his  Anglo-Saxon  Graminar,  ^.  205^  speaking 


9i4 


Miacellaneoua  Obeervafions. 


of  the  inflexion  of  the  second  class  of  his  first  conjugation 
says,  that  "in  this  class  it  is  necessary  to  obaenc  whether 
the  characteristic  is  a  hard  or  a  soft  consonant;  in  the  latter 
case  it  forms  de  in  the  imperfect,  and  ed  in  the  part,  pa&s., 
in  the  former,  te  in  the  imp.  and  /  in  the  part.  paaa. 
The  soft  consonants  are  rf,  S,  /,  w,  ^,  also  /,  tn,  «,  r,  * ; 
the  hard  are  t,  p,  c.  A,  x^  and  «  after  another  consonanL^ 
He  gives  as  instances  alysan,  aipsdet  nlysed^  to  redeem, 
amtjrran,  amyrde,  amyrred  to  waste,  metan^  meiie,  {ge)mett 
to  meet,  dyppan,  dypte.,  dypt,  to  dip.  lie  further  adds  that 
*'  if  the  consonant  be  double,  one  is  always  rejected,  when 
another  consonant  follows/'  ^.  SOti.  Grimm  in  his  Grammar 
gives  similar  rules  with  regard  to  the  modern  English  verb, 
of  which  they  are  not  true  according  to  the  actually  prevail- 
ing orthography.  "  In  case"  he  says,  "  the  e  is  omitted  in 
the  preterite,  the  d  becomes  /,  after  /,  m,  n,  p,  /f,  /  (from  u), 
gft  (from  k  and  oA),  and  «/'  citing  as  examples  the  words 
dealt,  felt,  dwelt,  spelt,  spilt,  smelt,  dreamt.,  lennt,  rncanty 
learnt,  burtit,  crept,  kept,  slept,  swept,  wppf,  leapt,  reapt, 
dipt,  slipt,  tipt,  whipt,  crackt,  knovkt,  left,  reft,  sought, 
lust,  kist,  mist,  blest.  Vol.  i.  p.  996.  These  various  in- 
stances exactly  correspond  with  the  suggestions  in  the  article 
referred  to. 

With  regard  to  the  English  genitive  case,  on  which  some 
observations  are  made  in  the  same  place  pp.  fi^Jg — fi7S,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that,  when  the  flexions  of  our  Saxon  language 
were  disturbed  by  the  admixture  of  the  heterogeneous  Norman 
element,  the  s  was  transferretl  from  those  substantives  in 
which  it  properly  marked  the  genitive  ease,  to  all  others, 
both  Saxon  and  Norman,  whatever  might  be  their  form ;  in 
the  sume  manner  as  the  same  letter  became  a  universal 
mark  of  the  plural  number,  without  reference  to  the  original 
and  proper  mode  of  inflexion:  see  Grimm,  Vol.  i.  p.  f)j)4. 
709.  Vol.  II.  p.  944,  Nothing  therefore  can  betray  a  greater 
ignorance  of  the  history  and  character  of  our  language,  than 
to  supposL*  that  such  expressions  as  the  king's  house,  the 
man's  garden,  are  contracted  from  the  king  his  house,  the 
man  his  garden.  Besides  the  impossibility  of  accounting 
for  such  forms  as  the  Queen^s  Majesty,  a  mother's  milk,  unless 
the  s  is  taken  to  be  the  mark  of  the  genitive,  there  are  also 


On  English  Preteriies  and  Genitives, 


9M 


two  other  cases  in  which  the  hypothesis  of  the  contraction 
of  the  pronoun  His  would  create  an  absurdity.  Not  only 
do  wo  say  the  King  of  Engl-ands  -pulaeey  Lady  Jane  Grey's 
amecutinn  ;  making,  for  the  purpose  of  infioxion,  King-of' 
England  and  Lady-Jane  Grey  into  one  word  (sec  Grimm, 
Vol.  It.  p.  959) ;  but  in  many  cases  where  the  names  of 
two  different  persons  are  constantly  connected  with  each  other, 
we  unite  them,  for  the  sake  of  declension,  into  one  word. 
Thus  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  plnys,  BaniewaU  and  Al^ 
derson's  Reports,  Rundell  and  Bridge's  shop,  (like  the  German 
£rsch  und  Grithers  Encychpddie) ;  where  it  is  obvious  that, 
if  any  pronoun  had  place,  their  and  not  his  would  have  been 
used.  Moreover  the  genitive  case  occurs  in  some  instances 
where  no  pronoun,  of  any  gender  or  number,  can  be  sup- 
posed to  have  existed :  thus  a  picture  of  the  King  is  a 
representation  of  the  King's  person,  re  picture  of  the  King's 
means  a  picture  belonging  to  the  King,  a  picture  of  the 
King's  pictures,  i.  e.  one  of  his  collection :  in  the  same 
maoDer  that  a  frieiid  of  mine  means  a  friend  of  my  friends. 
Id  cases  of  this  kind  such  a  moile  of  speech  as  a  picture  of 
the  King  his,  is  a  manifest  absurdity. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that,  because  one  form  of  expres- 
sion has  been  incorrectly  derived  from  another  by  dreaming 
etymologists,  therefore  that  form  is  absurd,  or  was  invented 
merely  to  furnish  an  etymology.  The  connexion  between 
two  forms  may  be  a  fiction,  though  the  existence  of  both 
may  be  real.  Accordingly  it  seems  to  me  very  questionable 
whether  such  expressions  as  the  king  his  housGf  Jesus  Christ 
his  sake^  are  not  perfectly  correct,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  spirit  of  the  language :  just  as  such  phrases  as  der 
Konig  sein  Ilaus  arc  used  by  the  Germans  in  familiar  con- 
versation, although  they  arc  less  precise  than  the  use  of  the 
genitive  case,  with  which  they  have  plainly  no  connexion. 
Swrift,  in  some  verses  entitled  Merlin's  Prophecy,  lias  the 
feminine  pronoun  in  the  same  way: 

Seven  and  ten,  addyd  to  nine. 
Of  Frauncc  her  woe  this  is  the  sygne. 
The    position    of    the    nominative    case,   to    which    the  pro- 
noun afterwards  gives  a  genitive  sense  by  relation,  is  exactly 
analogous,  in  respect  of  its  want  of  griunmacical  ciumexion. 


846 


Mhcelianeoua  OhgervtiHons. 


to  the  mode  of  expression  so  common  in  the  mouths  of 
illiterate  porsons^  by  which  the  nominative  case  is  placed 
alone,  and  followed  by  a  pronoun  which  governs  the  verb. 
John  he  goeSf  or  Mary  she  does^  are  the  pleonastic  fomu 
which  such  persons  constantly  use  in  narration.  Nor  were 
Oiey  formerly,  before  our  lajiguage  had  been  universally 
reduced  to  the  standard  of  empiric  ^rauiuiatical  rules,  con- 
fined to  inaccurate  itpeakers :  as  is  proved  by  the  following 
extract  from  the  letter  of  the  accomplished  and  the  eloquent 
Raleigh  written  to  his  wife  immediately  after  his  trial. 
"  I  cannot  write  much  (are  his  words) :  God  fte  htiows  how 
hardly  I  steal  this  time  while  others  sleep;  and  it  is  also  time 
that  X  should  separate  my  thoughts  from  the  world."  Jar- 
dinc's  Criminal  Trials,  Vol.  i.  p.  455. 

G.  C.  L. 


The  remarks  on  the  English  genitive  in  our  last  Num- 
ber were  almost  entirely  confined  to  their  immediate  object: 
and  as  that  was  an  orthographical,  not  an  etymological  ques- 
tion, I  did  not  bring  forward  any  arguments  to  prove  that 
the  6na]  e  does  not  stand  for  his,  but,  assuming  this  to  be 
notorious,  merely  pointed  out  the  general  law,  of  which  the 
mistake  on  this  matter  was  an  exempliBcation,  that  languages, 
when  they  combine,  are  wont  to  lose  their  grammatic  forms, 
and  to  pass  from  the  synthetic  to  the  analytic  class ;  and 
then  endeavoured,  though  very  imperfectly,  to  trace  the 
history  of  that  mistake,  to  shew  how  it  maintained  its  ground 
in  spite  of  repeated  protests  against  it,  and  to  establish,  what 
I  had  more  directly  in  %iew,  that  our  present  practice  of 
writing  our  genitives  witli  an  apostrophe  emanated  from  it. 
In  the  passages  indeed  cited  from  our  older  grammarians 
more  than  one  argument  is  urged,  wliich,  if  arguments  had 
always  the  same  power  in  effect  as  in  idea,  would  have  set 
the  old  and  correct  opinion  on  its  feet  again,  and  put  down 
the  errour  altogether.  We  all  know  however  that  it  is  often 
DO  less  difiicult  to  get  rid  of  an  errour,  than  it  would  be  (o 


On  English  Preterites  and  Genitives. 


247 


get  rid  of  the  gout,  by  reasoning.  On  the  contrary  when 
it  has  once  fast  hold,  like  the  old  raou  on  Sinbad*s  neck,  the 
more  you  argue  with  it,  the  faster  it  sticks:  and  the  only  thing 
to  be  done  is  to  let  it  have  its  own  way,  unless  perchance 
one  can  have  recourse  to  Sinbad*s  stratagem  of  making  it 
drunk.  Else  Wollises  remark  that  his  itself  is  only  the  geni- 
tive of  he^  proves  that  this  fancied  derivation  is  in  the  literal 
sense  of  the  word  preposterous;  so  preposterous  indeed,  that 
one  wonders  it  Hhoutd  ever  have  found  favour  with  anyb*)dy, 
unless  it  liad  been  with  that  recent  Historian  of  the  Bible, 
who,  to  explain  why  the  Almighty  employed  six  days  in  the 
work  of  creation,  when  he  might  have  effected  it  by  a  word, 
suggests  with  becoming  humility,  as  a  possible  motive,  that 
God  designed  to  *■'  establish  the  sanctity  of  the  sabbath  as  well 
by  example  as  precept,  and  to  place  it  upon  a  footing  more 
secure  than  by  any  other  means  it  could  have  acquired/ 
Moreover  if  there  be  any  value  in  an  argumentuin  ah  homine-, 
the  disciples  of  Home  Tooke  might  be  convinced  that,  as 
their  master  says  nothing  on  this  point,  nothing  can  possibly 
l>e  made  of  it  in  support  of  his  favorite  hypothesis,  that  all 
words  and  all  ideas  are  a  kind  of  zoophytes,  which  have  no 
means  of  growth  except  by  adhering  to  each  other,  and  which 
you  may  cut  into  as  many  pieces  as  you  like  without  doing 
them  any  material  mischief.  Nor  am  I  acquainted  with  any 
writer  of  late  years,  who,  either  practically  or  theoretically, 
has  held  that  kis  is  a  component  part  of  our  genitive:  and 
Mr  Crombie  in  his  sensible  and  useful  work  on  the  Ktymo. 
logy  and  Syntax  of  the  English  language,  though  he  might, 
and  perhaps  ought,  to  have  exprest  himself  more  decidedly, 
shews  that  our  present  genitive  has  come  down  to  us  without 
any  interruption  from  our  Saxon  ancestors.  So  that  if  man» 
be  man  his,  hominis  must  also  be  homin  his,  and  av^poi  must 
be  av^p  his.  For  in  the  present  state  of  that  science,  which 
might  appropriately  be  termed  Comparative  Etymology,  it  is 
impossible  to  doubt  that  the  es  of  the  genitive  in  the  Saxon 
and  other  Teutonic  dialects  is  identical  with  the  is  of  the 
Latin,  and  with  the  0$^  of  the  Greek  genitives.  It  is  found 
too,  as  oriental  scholars  tell  us,  in  Sanscrit.  To  bring  for- 
ward our  his  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  solving  a  pheno- 
menon which  runs  over  half  the  world,  would  be  about  as 


34R 


MisceUaneou*  Observation. 


reasonable,  though  nothing  like  so  witty,  as  Voltaire's  mode 
of  accounting  for  the  beds  of  shells  often  found  in  the  centrr 
of  Tast  continents,  which  shells,  for  fear  that  they  should  be 
regarded  as  a  proof  of  a  universal  deluge,  he  maintained  had 
been  dropt  there  by  pilgrims  to  the  Holy  Land.  What  the 
meaning  of  the  termination  is  may  be,  must  he  learnt  in  the 
East.  Mr  Gilchrist  inflced  docs  not  think  it  necessary  to  go 
60  far,  but  makes  it  out  by  his  own  mother-wit :  he  tells  us 
(Etymol.  Interpreter  p.  122)  that  V  "is  a  contraction  of  w  or 
M,^  and  .hat  this  "  is  the  sign  of  the  genitive  singular,  third 
declension  of  Latin  nouns ;  which  was  adopted  by  the  Saxon 
writers  to  answer  the  same  purpose  in  the  native  language 
which  they  were  forming :  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
said  is  was  originally  a  separate  word  answering  in  meaning 
or  use  to  of  with  us:  which  of,  as  well  as  the  termination  i<, 
is  a  contraction  or  fragment  of  some  compound  word.""  This 
to  lie  stire  is  a  truly  invaluable  piece  of  accurate  information. 
The  former  part  of  the  passage  refers  to  the  author''8  bosom- 
fancy;  that,  *'  if  not  nil,  nearly  nil  that  very  part  of  our  lan- 
guage which  is  moKl  eonfidciLtly  received  ax  Saxon  and  Gothir, 
is,  in  fact,  neither  more  nor  Ics?  than  a  corruption  of  Greek 
and  Latin  (p.  a) ;'"  and  that  the  chief  agents  in  this  transfor- 
mation, by  which  the  old  langiiagc  of  the  Saxons,  if  indeed 
they  had  any,  was  almost  erttrely  extinguisht,  were  the  men 
of  letters :  so  that  the  influence  of  such  persons  upon  the 
language  of  their  countrymen,  one  must  suppose,  varies  in- 
versely as  their  number  and  the  quantity  and  circulation  of 
their  writings.  For  the  pride  of  littrature  is  sadly  humbled 
when  we  examine  the  rustic  dialects,  whetlier  of  our  own 
or  of  any  other  tongue,  and  perceive  how  very  slight  and 
minute  is  the  influence  exercised  by  books,  even  in  the  course 
of  many  centuries,  on  the  s|>oken  language  of  the  people.  A 
few  extraneous  words  will  now  and  then  take  root  among 
them  :  but  even  if  you  sow  tlic  finest  pippin,  it  comes  vip  in 
the  shape  of  a  crab.  So  far  arc  the  lower  orders  from  bor- 
rowing grammatical  forms  from  the  higher,  that  the  very  words 
which  they  do  adopt,  they  almost  always  disfigure  and  dis- 
tort, in  order  to  bring  them  under  the  analogies  they  them- 
selves are  wont  to  be  guided  by.  In  truth  this  hypothesis, 
for  tfae  sobriety   of  judgement   it  indicates,  the  strength  of 


On  English  Mreterites  and  GeniHvw. 


349 


ar^imcnt  ou  which  it  is  foumied,  anil  the  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature,  of  history,  and  of  lan^ua^'  that  it  implies,  is 
an  admirable  match  for  Dugald  Stewart's  celebrated  notion 
that  the  San&crit  language  was  an  offset  of  the  Greek,  car- 
ried to  India  and  planted  there  by  Ale!cander''s  army.  Htonc- 
hengc,  we  shall  next  he  told,  consists  of  stones  hown  from 
the  Tarpeiaji  rock,  and  that  Julius  Cesar's  soldiers  brought 
them  over  in  their  pockets.  The  slight  difficulty  attend- 
ing nuch  a  hypothesis,  from  the  size  of  the  stones,  when  it 
is  suggested  to  the  hypothesi^er,  he  will  rtply,  may  be  got 
over  in  two  ways,  either  by  supposing  that  they  have  grown 
>ince  then,  or  that  the  men  in  those  days  had  bigger  pockets 
than  they  have  now :  and  he  will  remind  us  that  Pope's 
Homer  tells  us  how  his  ancestors  used  to  lift  much  heavier 
stones  than  he  could.  For  my  own  part  I  would  rather 
contend  that  this  primeval  temple  is  formeil  of  the  teeth  of 
the  great  carthsprung  giant  whom  Corineus  slew. 

But  to  stoop  from  these  flights :  there  are  sundry  ((ues- 
tions  connected  with  the  ust*  of  our  gi-nitive  which  re<|uire 
more  elucidation  than  they  have  hitherto  received  ;  and  among 
them  are  the  three  idioms  to  which  my  friend  G.  C.  L.  refers. 
Would  it  iHit  be  possible  for  instance  to  throw  some  sort  o( 
light  on  that  singular  peculiarity  which  compells  us  to  prefix 
the  genitive  to  tlic  noun  it  is  to  be  coupled  with  ?  When 
did  this  restriction  come  into  use?  It  did  not  prevail  in 
Anglosaxon :  Canlmon  hjui  henftnl  ealra  gescenffa^  head  of 
all  creatures,  thurh  geweald  GodeSf  tbrougk  the  wielding 
f»f  God.  Who  is  the  latest  writer  Jn  witom  one  finds  such 
a  collocation  of  words .''  I  have  not  noticed  it  in  Chaucer 
or  Mauudcvile,  or  in  the  little  1  have  read  uf  Gower  and 
Robert  of  Gloucester:  but  unless  one  is  expressly  ou  the 
watch,  even  such  an  idiom  as  this  might  occur  repeatedly, 
without  making  any  durable  impression  on  the  memory. 
In  (rerman  prose  tlie  usual  order  is  for  the  genitive  to  fol- 
low: that  is  to  say,  in  most  of  the  cases  in  which  we  should 
place  the  genitive  before  the  noun  it  depends  on,  the  Ger- 
mans would  do  the  same:  but  in  that  far  more  numerous 
class  of  cases  where  we  should  have  recourse  to  the  prepo- 
sition o/,  they  subjoin  the  genitive.  They,  like  us,  would 
riay  Goetheg  Faiist^  and  not,  unless  for  the  sake  of  some 
Vol..  II.  No.*.  li 


S50  MueeUanecua  Ohaercations. 

particular  emphasis,  der  Faust  Goetkes.  But  at  the  same  time 
they  would  say  die  Einwohner  der  Stadia  die  Grosse  dea 
ffattneM,  die  Furcht  des  Todea :  Werther  begins  his  first 
letter  with  was  ist  das  Herz  des  Menschen,  and  closes  the 
second  with  ich  erliege  ttnter  der  Getoalt  der  Herrlichkeit 
dieser  Erschetntmgen.  In  phrases  of  this  kind  if  the  usual 
order  is  inverted,  it  gives  the  style  an  elevated  cast:  nor  is 
such  an  inversion  common  except  in  poetry,  where,  as  in  En- 
glish, it  is  very  acceptable,  because,  as  the  genitive  in  some 
measure  defines  the  word  it  is  attacht  to,  it  serves  in  lieu  of 
the  article.  The  general  principle  by  which  the  order  of  the 
words  in  such  cases  is  regulated,  is  the  same  in  German  and 
Knglish  :  the  less  important  leads  the  way,  the  more  impor- 
tant,  flfl  in  a  procession,  follows.  Thus  for  example,  if  we 
take  the  opening  of  Paradise  I-ost — Of  marCs  jirst  disobe- 
dlpnrtf^  and  the  fruit  Of  that  ftrbidden  tree — it  is  evident 
thiit,  had  Milton  written  Of  the  ^first  dieobedience  of  man, 
and  that  forbidden  tree^s  fruity  his  meaning  would  have 
hern  different  from  what  it  is:  he  now  calls  on  the  Muse 
to  sing  of  man''s  first  act  of  disobedience,  as  distinguisht 
frftrri  all  his  other  acts,  and  of  the  fruit  of  that  for- 
tfldden  tree,  as  distinguisht  from  that  of  all  other  trees: 
wbf^eas  the  other  arrangement  of  the  words  would  have 
\m*l  the  stress  on  man  as  distinguisht  from  other  beings, 
Htn\  'Ml  the  fruit  as  distinguisht  from  the  rest  of  the  tree. 
tt*^u»  Mich  expressions  as  the  Faradixe  Uist  of  Afilton,  the 
f'riwApia  of  Newtvn,  to  which  I  objected  in  the  last  Number 
(p,  07«)  on  the  score  of  inelegance,  are  faulty  also  on  another 
<s«WDt :  except  where  there  is  a  special  purpose  to  challenge 
Mtjbeutioa  tot  the  author,  rather  than  for  the  work.  ■  When 
thm  work  is  the  main  object,  it  ought  to  stand  last.  It  is  ex- 
ceedingly thoughtless  therefore  to  say,  as  most  of  our  gram- 
Oiarians  do,  Mr  Crombie  for  instance  (p.  256),  that  **  the  geni- 
tive CMte  is  generally  resolvable  into  the  objective  with  the 
preposition  of:  as  the  king's  sceptre^  or  the  sceptre  of  the 
kiag^  his  head^  or  the  head  of  him  ^  as  if  any  creature  that 
had  a  notion  of  speaking  English  could  ever  say,  the  execu- 
iifmer  cut  off  the  head  of  him.  Indeed  one  might  pronounce 
pnity  confidently  that  no  people  under  the  sun  was  ever  so 
devoid  <^  all  power  of  analysing  its  thoughts,  as  to  |*o  on  for 


On  English  Fretenfes  and  Genilivea. 


351 


century  after  century  using  two   words  or  two  i)liraiu'S  with- 
out  drawing  a  distinction  between  them.       Cobbctt  too  says 
just  the  same  thing  as  Mr  Crombie,  adding,  that,  "as  to  when 
one  mode  of  expression  is  best,  and  when  the  other,  it  is  a 
matter  which  must  be  left  to  tasted  so  that  he  felt  there  was 
a  difference  between  them,  though  he  was  unable  to  explain  it, 
and   therefore  referred  the  question  to  taste,  that  last  arbiter 
invoked  by  those  who  have  nothing  else  to  appeal   to:  as  if 
taste  were  something  totally  arbitrary  and  unaccountable,  and 
as  if  the  very  business  of  a  grammarian  were  not  to  set  forth 
the  rules  which  taste  lays  down  for  the  usage  of  speech,  and 
to  explain   their  motives  and  grounds.     It  may  be  not  unin- 
teresting to  remark  that  the  general  principle  of  the  ancient 
languages  with  regard  to  the  order  of  wurds,  so  far  us  relates 
to  the  matter  we  arc  now  discussing,  was  the  reverse  of  ours, 
and  that,  IkjiIi  in  Latin  and  Greek,  genitives  as  well  as  ad- 
jectives, unless  they  were  emphatic,  stood  in  the  rear,  except 
under  peculiar  circumstances:  and  moreover  that  in  compound 
words,  our  gcntTal   practice   being  to  throw  back   the  accent 
as  far  as  jHi.ssible,  the  moKt  important  word  usually  ccmies  first. 
Hence  f(>r  instance  Tom  the  arm  of  John  becomes  Tom  John- 
son: but  nitlxKly  wtrtdd  call  him  Tom  John  8  son.     In  Gaelic 
names  nn  the  cimtrary,    whatever   the    reason    may   be,   as  in 
Macdonald,  Mackod,  Macpherson,  the  word  expressing  filia- 
tion is  prefixt. 

May  not  these  remarks  point  our  way  to  the  reason  which 
led  us  to  retain  the  genitive  for  one,  and  yet  only  for  one, 
particular  construction  ?  When  the  two  languages  nut  of 
wliich  the  modern  English  has  grown  up,  began  to  coalesce, 
one  of  the  results  of  their  union,  as  was  remarkt  in  the  last 
Number  (pp.  liff7-9),  was  a  tenilency  to  get  rid  of  gramma- 
tical forms.  For  in  the  first  place  when  foreiu  wonls  arc 
imported  in  any  numbers,  there  is  always  a  good  deal  of 
difficulty  in  transforming  them  into  natives,  as  may  be  seen 
in  the  unenglish  character  of  our  scientific  phraseology,  in 
which  wc  have  not  yet  l>een  able  to  give  a  national  form 
even  to  the  plurals  of  genus  and  fipecies,  and  in  wliich  the 
words  are  often  no  less  uncouth  a  medley  than  the  objects 
they  are  meant  to  stand  for.  One  might  almost  fancy  that 
our  men   of  science  had    lost    their   perception    of  what    the 


2fi2 


MiscelUmeous  Ohservations. 


English  language  is :  so  much  accustomed  arc  they  to  Latin 
terminations,  (hat  they  seem  to  forget  the  tlilTereuce  between 
those  and  our  own.  Now  when  a  vast  moss  of  foroin  words 
is  let  ull  at  once  into  a  nutioit,  a  similar  bluiitness  of  perception 
ensues.  They  many  of  them  refuse  to  conform  to  the  ana- 
logies which  have  hitherto  guided  its  speech:  and  tlius  the 
people  has  to  deal  with  two  distinct  cSasses  of  words,  which 
cannot  be  brought  under  the  suiuc  laws.  Meanwhile  that 
instinct,  which  is  ever  at  work  in  all  languages,  assimilating 
whatever  is  incorporated  into  them,  and  endeavouring  to 
produce  a  untfarm  homogeneous  wliole,  does  not  cease  to  act : 
it  picks  out  those  forms  in  the  old  language  which  are  most 
easily  fitted  to  the  new ;  for  instance  the  mode  of  formation 
by  affixes,  instead  of  that  by  modifying  the  radical  part  of 
the  theme:  but  above  all  it  has  recourse  to  auxiliaries  and 
prepositions,  in  lieu  of  organic  flexions;  for  these  may  be 
applied  to  any  word  without  the  slightest  alteration  of  its 
character.  At  the  same  time  a  kind  of  compromise  takes 
place;  and  the  homesprung  words  gradually  throw  aside  more 
and  more  of  those  peculiarities  which  separate  them  from 
their  new  brethren,  till  at  length  the  combination  assumes 
smnething  like  a  harmonious  consistency.  Thus  at  the  mar- 
riage of  the  Anglosaxon  with  the  Norman  French,  one  of 
the  natural  conditions  wan  that  the  former  should  give  up 
its  cases :  and  to  this  stipulution  it  agreed,  provided  tliat 
some  substitute  could  be  found  for  them,  in  order  to  express 
the  same  relations  which  till  then  had  been  exprest  by  their 
means.  Now  when  the  genitive  followed  the  noun  on  which 
it  depended,  the  substitute  was  easily  procured :  the  pre|>o- 
sition  of  fully  answered  the  purpose,  and,  as  it  corresjwnded 
to  the  French  tlct  served  moreover  to  bring  the  two  lan- 
guages nearer  to  each  other ;  de  having  in  like  manner 
taken  the  place  of  the  Latin  genitive  in  the  Romanesque 
tongues.  On  the  other  hand  when  tTie  genitive  preceded  its 
noun,  there  was  no  way  of  filling  up  its  place.  To  have  said 
of  heaven  the  ruler  instead  of  heaven's  rttler,  of  the  stcord 
with  the  edge  instead  of  tvifk  the  sivord*8  edge^  would  have 
been  utterly  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  each  of  tlie  two 
united  languages.  In  the  former  case  the  Norman  had  shewn 
what   was   to   be  dune ;  but   it   had    nothing   parallel    to   the 


On  EnglUh  Preterites  and  Genitives. 


353 


latter.  Yet  this  construction,  ns  npiK-ars  from  nil  the  remains 
of  Anglosaxon  literature,  was  excee<iinglv  prevalent,  nntl  in- 
deed Hpjieurs  to  have  been  the  commoner  of  the  two;  and  so, 
as  lanf^iia^eit  are  seldom  willing  to  part  with  any  "ght,  un- 
less they  t^n  ^t  on  equivalent,  which  at  the  moment  they 
deem  jireferable,  in  its  Rtead,  this  use  of  the  genitive  was  not 
given  up.  All  this,  I  grant,  is  merely  conjectural;  and  to 
confirm  it  would  require  a  diligent  examination  of  the  monu- 
ments of  our  language  anterior  to  the  age  of  Chaucer. 
Perhaps  that  examination  might  convince  us  that  the  pecu- 
liarity in  question  arose  in  a  totally  difterent  way.  Though 
the  explanation  I  have  been  suggesting  appears  to  me  by  no 
incans  improbable,  I  propose  it  with  great  diffidence :  nor 
should  I  have  brought  it  forward  until  I  had  gone  through 
a  good  deal  more  nf  the  requisite  investigation,  but  that  I 
have  unintentionnllv  been  led  by  G.  C.  L/s  remarks  tu  resume 
this  stibject  prematurely. 

The  foregoing  observations  will  help  us  to  account  for 
the  anomalnus  idioms  cited  by  G.  C.  L.  As  we  only  retained 
the  genitive  for  one  particular  conslniction,  and  as  the  cha- 
racter of  our  language  led  us  in  ninetynine  cases  out  of  a 
hundred  to  place  it  immediately  before  the  noun  it  depended 
upon,  or  at  least  iK'fore  an  adjective  connected  with  that 
noun,  we  lost  the  perception  nf  its  meaning  in  any  other 
position,  and  fancied  it  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  final 
*  to  stand  close  to  the  second  noun,  even  when  wo  could 
not  place  it  there  except  by  tearing  it  away  from  the  word 
to  which  of  right  it  belonged.  Hence  Wallis,  us  appeared 
in  the  passage  tpioted  in  tlic  last  Number,  was  led  to  deny 
that  our  genitives  were  anything  hut  possessive  adjectives. 
Thus  for  example  we  cannot  say,  the  king's  of  England 
palace^  Al^,vanders  the  Great  victorif ;  but  make  the  s  shif^ 
its  place,  though  in  the  first  example  it  occasions  an  ambi- 
guity, and  in  the  second  attaches  itself  to  an  adjective,  which 
under  all  other  circumstances  is  indeclinable.  Thus  again 
people  more  frequently  say  nobody  etses  than  noftodys  else. 
It  is  curious  to  observe  the  straits  and  awkwardnesses  into 
which  tliis  peculiarity  has  led  us.  The  Collect  for  the  fourth 
Sunday  after  Trinity  ends  with  for  Jestts  Chrisfs  sake*  otir 
Ijsrd;    that    fin-    tlie    twenty-fourth    Sunday    with  for   Jems 


954 


MUeetianeauif  ObservaHong. 


Christ''«  stike^  our  Uesaed  Lord  and  iSavioiir.  At  the  time 
these  words  were  so  arranged,  it  can  hurdly  have  been  thought 
aliowuble  to  transfer  tlic  tcniiinatinn  from  the  main  word  to 
a  subordinate  one:  else  unke  would  liuve  stood  ut  the  end  of 
the  sentence.  In  the  Morte  d'Arthur,  iii.  I,  Arthur  tells 
Merb'n  **  /  looe  Gwtmever  the  kyn^es  dou^hter  Lodegreati 
of  the  land  of  CamelerdC  that  is,  the  daughter  of  Lode- 
f^eaii  Idiig  of  the  land  of  Cnmelerd.  Afjain,  in  iii.  8,  we 
find  My  name  w  Gavayne.,  the  ktpig  Lott  of  Orkeney  #onc; 
and  shortly  after,  Sir  Gorntjue  kyn^  Lots  gone  of  Orkeney. 
Agaia  iu  iv.  7,  /  am  the  hrdes  daughter  of  this  caatel. 
In  I.  2, — kynf(€  UryenSy  that  wo*  Sir  Ewaitis  le  Haunche 
ntaynys  fader — we  meet  with  an  adjective  intervening  be- 
tween tlie  genitive  and  its  governing  noun:  such  a  colloca- 
tioQ  ciinnot  be  common,  I  nhould  think,  after  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  even  if  it  he  so  I)eforc.  In  Arnold's 
chronicle  (printed  about  the  year  1502)  we  read  (in  p.  xxxv  of 
the  reprint)  the  Dukis  of  Yorke  eldest  soTxe  take  upon  hym 
the  rrotrne.  But  the  practice  at  that  time  must  have  I)een 
very  unsettled :  for  a  few  pages  further  on  we  find,  the  kynge 
of  Spayns  doughter ;  and  soon  after  the  kyngys  daughter  of 
Spayne;  and  again  (p.  xlix)  the  sister  of  the  kyngys  of 
£ttglandy  where  we  iiiave  a  genitive  with  the  preposition 
preceding  it.  The  usual  mode  however  seen)B  to  have  b«en 
to  insert  the  noun  on  which  the  genitive  depends  between  it 
and  its  attributives,  as  in  the  instances  quoted  above  from 
the  collects,  and  three  of  those  from  the  Morte  d' Arthur.  In 
the  sjune  way  in  our  version  of  St  Matthew  we  are  told  that 
Her(Ki  put  John  in  prison,  for  Herodias  eake^  his  brother 
PhiUp''8  wife.  And  we  meet  with  the  same  construction  io 
Chaucer's  Jack  Upland  :  *'  If  Christe  might  and  could  and 
would  have  made  a  rule  perfect  without  default,  and  did 
not,  he  was  not  Gods  sonne  almighty,''^  that  is,  the  son  of 
God  Almighty.  Again  in  his  translation  of  Boethins  (p-  ;i98, 
ed.  Ififs"),  '*  Agamemnon  wan  agen  Heleine,  that  was  Mene- 
laus  wife,  his  brother. "^  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  Troilus 
and  Creseide,  **  The  double  sarow  of  Troilus  to  telle.  That 
was  the  king  Priamus  sonne  of  Troy^  It  would  require 
somb  research  to  make  out  when  the  modern  usage  became 
the  purri'nt   one.      In    the   Provoked    Wife,   A.  iv,   Sc.  I,    we 


On  En^iiitft   I'reteriten  and  Genitives. 


255 


find  thfi  (Uir.tur  of  thi:  jHiTisfCa  gown:  in  Swift  (Vol.  iv. 
p.  66.  ed.  1824),  "  I  duubt  not  but  you  arc  curious  to  know 
the  secret  of  Monsieur  Prior,  an  English  gf.ntlemanx  iate 
journey  to  Paris ;"  (p.  .S53)  '*  the  first  opportunity  was  that 
of  the  Prince  of  DetimarW**/  death.''''  But  even  in  Queen 
Elizabeth^  time  such  seems  to  have  been,  if  not  the  only,  at 
least  the  general  practice.  In  the  Palace  of  Pleasure,  Vol.  i. 
p.  146,  we  read  of  "a  great  lady*  which  was  one  of  the  mor- 
ehaltes  of  Knglandes  wicea^  that  is,  one  of  the  wives  of  the 
marshals  of  England;  and  soon  after  of  "  one  other  of  the 
Ifyft^  of  En^tandee  marahailes.'"'  It  is  remarkable  that,  as 
we  learn  from  Grimm  (V.  ir.  p.  fM>0),  the  same  anomaly  is  com- 
mon among  the  lower  orders  in  Germany,  who  say  des  Kaiser 
von  Oe^treidCs  Armee^  instead  of  the  le^timate  expression,  de» 
Kaisers  von  Oesfreieh.  In  explaining  this  way  of  speak- 
ing, Grimm  remarks  that  we  regard  king-of-England  as  one 
word,  from  which  we  form  a  genitive :  and  no  doubt,  if 
we  are  to  give  a  grammatical  account  of  it,  this  is  what  we 
must  say  ;  though  at  the  same  time,  but  for  the  indistinct- 
ness of  our  perceptions  with  regard  to  the  proper  nature  of 
inflexions,  we  could  hardly  have  so  misapplied  them.  In  the 
same  manner  we  sometimes  attach  the  plural  m  to  a  phrase. 
In  the  Witch  of  Kdnuniton,  Act  ii.  Cuddy  applies  to  mo- 
ther Sawyer  to  send  him  one  of  her  wkat-d'ye'VaH~ems. 
Swift  in  his  Journal  is  fond  of  the  expression,  *' one  of  these 
oddcome-shortlies  r  which  as  well  as  the  former  has  gained  a 
kind  of  conversational  currency.  With  regard  to  names  our 
usage  is  still  unsettled  ■.  some  persons  would  say  the  Mis» 
Thompsons,  others  the  Misses  Thompson :  the  former  mode 
is  clearly  more  in  keeping  with  the  general  practice  of  the  lan- 
guage, anil  ones  leaning  at  first  would  he  toward  it:  but  those 
who  plume  them.sclvcs  on  their  accuracy  adopt  the  latter  ;  and 
at  all  events  they  can  allcdge  the  authority  of  Swift,  who  writes 
(Vol.  I.  p.  tit)  *'  I  went  to  the  ladies  Butler.'^  At  times  too 
we  allow  ourselves  to  play  the  some  tricks  with  other  forma- 
tive terminations.  In  Wycherly's  Country  Wife,  Act  ll, 
Homer  says,  '*  Every  raw,  peevish,  out -of -humour  d^  tea- 
drinking,  arithmetic  fop  sets  up  for  a  wit.*'  In  his  Gentle- 
man Dancing- Master,  Act  ii,  bashfulncss  is  said  to  be  "  the 
only  out-of  fashion  d  thing  that  is  agreeable.""     In  the  Double 


256 


MUcelUineou9  Observations. 


Dealer,  Act  ii.  Sc.  I,  Ladv  Froth  complains  that  Mellefont 
wants  "  something  of  hia  own  that  should  look  a  little  je-ne- 
Hcay-quoy'vihy  Church  of  England  too  having  been  often 
used  as  an  epithet — South  for  inetance  talks  of  the  Church 
af-Kngland  royai'ista  (r.  p.  276),  the  Church-of-England  rj^g 
(1,  S47), — Mr  Benthaui  — for  even  he  could  not  devise  word* 
which  were  utterly  repugnant  to  all  annlo<Tv — puhlisht  a  vo- 
lume on  what  he  called  Ckurck-of-Englandism. 

The  very  same  blindness  to  the  meaning  of  a  flexiooal 
termination,  and  the  same  notion  that  the  r  of  the  genitive 
ought  to  stand  immediately  before  the  noun  by  M'hich  it 
U  governed,  led  us  further,  when  two  distinct  nouna 
rounccted  by  a  conjunction  depend  u|)on  the  same  noun,  to 
affix  it  only  to  the  latter.  The  earliest  instance  I  have  re- 
markt  of  this  usage  is  in  the  Morte  d' Arthur,  B.  i.  ch.  IS: 
"  by  kyng  Ban  and  Bors  tHtunctHll  they  let  brenne  and  de- 
stroye  all  the  contrey  afore  them  :"  but  to  be  sure  these  two 
kings  are  mostly  8poken  of  as  if  they  had  but  one  soul,  and 
hardly  more  than  one  tongue,  between  them.  Chaucer  in- 
deed in  bis  Jack  Upland  says,  "-And  why  clepest  thou  the 
rather  of  S.  Francis  or  S.  Dominiks  rule  or  religion  or 
order,  than  of  Christes  rule  or  order?"  This  passage  how- 
ever settles  nothing:  for  with  Chaucer  the  genitive  of  nouns 
in  s  does  not  change;  and  a  little  before  we  iind  S-  Francis 
ntle.  A  translation  of  JMrett  and  />iV/iy*V  Trujan  war  in  verse 
was  publisht  in  I5.'i5.  In  the  old  ballad  of  the  Taming  of  the 
Shrew  (publisht  in  Utterson's  Karly  Popular  Poetry,  p.  185),  we 
reatl  "How  the  brydc  was  maryed  wifh  her  father  and  mothers 
ffood  mil."  To  refer  to  the  instances  cited  by  G.  C.  L., 
nobtxiy  would  say  he  had  been  at  HH7uielV8  and  Bridge's ; 
nobody  would  talk  about  Beaumfmf'n  and  Ftfivhern  plays. 
The  same  idiom  may  perhaps  be  fountl  in  Germany.  The 
example  quoted  by  G.  C.  L.  however  does  not  altogether 
prove  that  it  is  :  for  Krurh  is  a  name  which  the  German* 
never  decline  when  thcv  can  help  it:  just  us  when  they  quote 
any  work  by  Thiersvh^  his  name  is  usually  left  standing 
without  any  iiioilificAtion.  The  ordinnrv  ])ructice,  at  least 
in  books,  wht'H  two  names  arc  couphtl  in  tliis  way,  is  to  put 
them  both  in  tlie  genitive.  W.  Schlegel  in  his  Dramatic  Lec- 
tures speaks  of  Beaunnrnttt  nnd   Fletchers    Werke.      Ritter 


On  English   Preterites  and  GeniHees. 


357 


in  his  History  of  Philosophy  refers  to  Schlcicnnacher*'s 
essay  on  Heraclitus  in  Wuffs  und  liuttmann'a  Museum. 
So  does  Krug,  and  also  to  Backirs  on  the  Platonic  soul 
of  the  world  in  DauVs  und  Creuxer's  Studien.  MuHer 
(Archafol.  p.  21)  quotes  Stxtarfs  und  Jievetfjt  AntiquitieH 
of  Athens.  And  a  writer  in  the  Vienna  Review  (111.  S) 
speaks  of  Gaits  und  Spurxheims  Methode.  It  would  be 
easy  to  multiply  instances :  these  however  are  sufficient  to 
shew  tliat  the  German  received  idiom  on  this  point  is  the 
reverse  of  ours :  and  that  it  should  be  so  is  ca.sily  to  be 
accounted  for,  from  their  being  much  more  familiar  with  the 
meaning  of  cases  than  wt  are.  To  explain  our  practice  gram- 
matically wc  must  suppose  that  the  two  names  are  as  it  were 
under  a  bracket,  and  that  the  final  s  belongs  to  them  both: 
pretty  much  as  when  two  compound  words,  the  latter  half 
of  which  is  the  same,  are  coupled  together,  we  go  to  work 
on  an  economical  plan,  and  allow  only  one  tail  to  two  heads. 
This  is  very  common  in  German,  which  might  perhaps 
convince  us  that  an  economy  of  words  is  not  the  real  object 
aimed  at :  but  in  English  also  wc  should  talk  of  a  wine 
and  Hpirit-nierchatity  a  bread  and  bisctiit-baker,  a  tea  and 
cfjffee-dealer .  Swift  (Vol.  11.  p.  186')  speaks  of  ee/ «;irf /ror/?- 
Jishing.  Milton  (i.  p.  16'c))  exclaims  against  the  dieting  the 
ignorance  of  the  clergy  *'  with  the  limited  draught  of  a  matin 
and  evensong  drench.""  And  South  in  one  of  his  bursts  of 
plaiuBpuken  force  (i.  p.  132)  says  that  the  consciences  uf 
most  men  "  nowadays  are  hetl  and  damnatior^proof.'" 

Tlie  preceding  remarks  at  all  events  sliew  how  well  dis- 
posed wc  arc  to  assume  that  the  linal  «  of  the  genitive  is 
not  an  essential  part  of  the  noun,  but  a  kind  of  affix 
whicli  may  be  removed  from  it,  and  attaclit  to  some  other 
word  connected  with  it :  and  such  being  the  case,  wc  need 
Dot  be  surprised  that  the  erroneous  notion  of  its  standing 
in  the  room  of  his  should  have  met  with  such  ready  ac- 
tcptunce.  That  notion  I  called  "a  gross  blunder^  in  the 
last  Number;  and  that  it  is  so  G.  C.  L.  agrees  with  me: 
indeed  nobody  at  this  day  who  knows  anytliing  about  the 
matter  could  be  uf  a  different  opinion.  He  reminds  me  how. 
ever  very  justly  that  "the  connexion  between  two  things  may 
be  a  fiction,  and  yet  that  both  may  have  a  real  existence.*' 
Vol.  II.  No.  *.  K  k 


258 


Miscellaneous  Observations, 


Thus,  to  refer  in  the  most  celebrated  instance  of  such  a 
fictitious  connexion,  it  may  be  very  true  that  Troy  was 
destroyed,  and  that  a  portion  of  its  inhabitants  survived 
it»  fall;  and  it  is  certain  that  Rome  must  have  had  an 
origin  at  one  lime  or  other :  the  fiction  in  which  the 
legend  indulges,  is,  that  these  two  events  were  connected 
logt'iher.  As  the  origin  of  the  use  of  his  in  the  place  of 
the  genitive  was  not  the  question  immediately  before  me,  I 
assumed  rather  too  liastily  that  it  was  a  mere  blunder,  with- 
out looking  niund  tu  ascertain,  as  one  always  ought  to  do, 
whether  there  was  nu  other  way  of  accounting  for  it :  for 
Buch  a  charge  ought  not  to  be  brought  forward  except  as 
a  kind  of  last  resource.  G.  C.  L.  is  inclined  to  question 
whether  •*8uch  an  expression  as  the  king  his  ftouse  is  not 
perfectly  correct  and  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
language."  Now  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  discussions, 
it  is  next  to  impossible  to  prove  a  negative.  Above  alt  in 
language,  which  is  subject  to  the  perpetual  operation  of  such 
innnifold,  unaccountable,  and  incalculable  influences,  is  one 
bound  to  abstain  from  laying  down  what  anything  must  or 
cannot  be,  and  to  content  oneself  with  determining  and  ex- 
phtining  what  it  is.  The  utmost  that  can  be  done  is  to 
shew  that  there  is  no  suflicient  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
construction  in  question  as  a  legitimate  part  of  the  lan- 
guage, that  it  is  at  variance  with  its  prevalent  analogies, 
and  then  to  point  out  the  way  in  which  the  mistake, 
supposing  it  to  be  one,  may  have  first  gained  a  footing. 
Now  in  the  first  place  I  do  not  believe  that  the  use  of 
his  instead  of  the  genitive  termination  prevails  in  any  of  our 
provincial  dialects:  1  find  no  mention  of  it  in  such  glos- 
saries as  have  fallen  in  my  way  ;  and  the  general  tendency 
of  the  8]K?t<!h  of  our  lower  orders,  in  eonsetjuencc  of  their 
retaining  the  Saxon  Knglish  with  much  less  admixture,  and 
thus  having  a  more  vivid  feeling  of  its  analogies,  is  rather 
to  preserve  its  old  grammatical  forms  to  a  greater  extent 
thai»  they  are  preserved  in  the  speech  of  cultivated  society. 
Nor  do  the  idioms  referretl  to  by  G.  C.  L.  apjiear  to  me  to 
establish  his  position.  At  all  evenl.f  the  use  of  tlie  jier- 
sonal  pronoun  after  a  pmper  name,  which  is  found  so  per- 
petually in  our  old  ballads,  and  in  the  old  German  poems, 


On  English  Preterites  and  Genitives. 


969 


for  instance  in  the  Lay  of  the  Nibelungen^  is  no  way  at 
variance  with  those  rules  which  G.  C,  L.  terms  empirical, 
that  is  to  say,  which  have  been  drawn  from  the  (general 
practice  of  languoj^s.  On  the  contrary  it  is  grammatically 
defensible,  as  merely  an  instance  of  apposition  :  and  it  cor- 
responds very  nearly  to  the  Homeric  use  of  the  demonstra- 
tive pronoun  along  with  proper  names.  Wallis  in  his 
Grammar,  ch.  4,  speaks  of  it  a^  a  construction  which  occurs 
seldom  in  Latin,  more  frequently  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  but  is 
very  common  in  Hebrew  and  in  English.  As  a  proof  that  its 
purpose  is  mostly  to  give  emphasis,  I  may  observe  that  this 
use  of  the  pronoun  after  a  name  is,  T  believe,  pretty  nearly 
confined  to  the  nominative  case.  The  Eldridge  Icnighte^ 
lie  pricked  his  steed; — That  knif^hte^  he  is  a  foul  paynim ; 
— Sir  Cmdiney  he  slexve  the  Eldridge  knighte :  these  expres- 
sions are  perfectly  agreeable  to  grammatical  idiom,  and  in 
all  of  them  the  pronoun  adds  to  the  force  of  the  passage. 
If  wc  often  hear  this  pleonasm  used  by  the  lower  orders 
with  regard  to  matters  wliich  to  us  do  not  appear  to  be 
of  the  slightest  importance,  it  may  perhaps  arise  from  our 
having  a  different  scale  to  judge  of  importance  from  theirs, 
and  from  our  not  considering  how  entirely  the  uneducated 
ore  taken  up  by  whatever  happens  to  be  immwliately  before 
them,  whether  before  their  senses  or  their  thoughts,  if 
indeed  in  their  cose  such  a  distinction  is  applicable.  No- 
body however  would  say  Sir  Cauline  slewe  the  Kldridf*e 
knight  him :  and  yet  this  expression  conies  much  nearer 
to  the  one  we  are  considering,  only  that  the  latter  is  ungratn- 
inaticol  into  the  bargain,  or,  if  that  expression  be  not  al- 
lowable, is  inconsistent  with  the  rules  followed  in  the  com- 
bination of  words  botfi  in  our  own  language  and  the  cognate 
ones.  I  grant  that,  if  the  Germans  do  indeed  use  such  an 
expression  as  der  Kiiniff  sein  JIaus  in  familiar  conversation, 
this  analogy  would  be  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the 
corruption  I  am  impugning.  But  I  am  disposed  to  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  that  phrase,  more  especially  as  it  is  not  men- 
tioned by  Becker  in  his  Grammar  (Vol.  i.  p.  17S)i  where  he 
is  speaking  of  the  pleonastic  use  of  the  pronoun,  and  in- 
stances the  rodundaiu-ii's  f/t'«  Vatcrs  sein  Hut,  der  Mutter  ihr 
Kieid,  as  habitual  among  the  lower  orders.      This  cumulative 


960 


MisceUaneuus  Obsercatiow. 


use  of  the  jKisscssive  may  be  compared  to  that  of  the  nega- 
tive, so  common  in  vulgar  speech ;  and  Imth  arise  from  that 
tendency  to  put  forth  more  force  than  is  necessary,  which 
is  alwayR  foinid  among  the  inexpert,  in  words  as  well  as  in 
deeds.  Such  expressions  indeed  as  der  Konig  aein,  der  Voter 
mein,  are  common  in  the  popular  language,  and  occur  per- 
petually in  old  poetry  :  but  here  mein  and  sein  are  used  in 
their  original  manner,  as  genitives,  This  is  a  point  however 
on  which  I  cAnnot  venture  to  speak  with  the  slightest  confi- 
dence. With  regard  to  our  own  phrase  the  best  way  to  esta- 
blish its  legitimacy  would  be  to  bring  forward  passages,  if 
Buch  are  to  be  found,  in  which  her  or  their  is  used  in  the 
same  manner :  for  such  a  use  could  not  be  resolved  into  a 
corruption.  If  such  passages  are  not  to  be  found,  this  will  he 
a  strong  negative  argument  the  other  way.  The  one  from 
Swift,  which  ia  the  only  one  I  ever  remember  to  have  seen, 
is  curious  as  shewing  what  his  notions  about  our  old  language 
were,  but  of  course  is  of  no  weight  as  a  proof  that  such  a 
mode  of  speaking  did  ever  actually  prevail :  he  merely  in- 
ferred, from  having  often  met  with  Am  in  old  English,  that 
her  must  also  have  been  used  in  the  same  manner.  As  it  is, 
I  cannot  help  still  thinking  that  what  led  so  many  of  our  old 
writers  to  use  his  instead  of  the  genitive  termination,  was 
the  notion  that  that  termination  had  originated  out  of  it. 
That  such  a  persuasion  did  actually  exist  was  shewn  in 
my  former  remarks  on  this  subject;  and  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact  th.Tt  in  our  version  of  the  Bible  Asa  his  and  Mor~ 
derai  his  were  introduced,  as  if  they  were  corrections,  in- 
stead of  the  older  readings  Asus  and  Mordevtiis,  as  well  as 
by  the  substitution  <if  Christ  his  sake  in  the  new  prayers 
for  Christs  sake^  the  close  of  the  old  ones.  At  what  period 
the  errour,  if  it  be  one,  first  gained  ground,  still  remains 
to  be  made  out :  it  would  seem  to  have  been  very  pre- 
valent in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century :  for  two 
translations  from  Horace  were  publisht  in  l5fiG  and  I. 5(1*7, 
one  of  them  entitletl  Titro  Jirmkes  of  Hnrtu'e  his  Sattjres 
En^lyahed,  neeordyng  /«  the  preseription  of  Saint  HieroTnCy 
the  other  Horace  his  Arte  of  Poetries  Pistlcsj  and  Satirs 
Knglished  t>tj  Thn.  Drant :  and  a  translation  of  Ovid  his 
Invectire    against    Ibift    cantc   out    in    15r»9.       May   not    the 


On  English  Preterites  nnc 


iittxfes. 


S61 


source  of  the  corruption  be  found  in  the  practice,  which  U 
not  uncommon,  when  a  person  cannot  write  himself,  to  put 
John  Tomkins^  htn  mark.,  over  against  his  signature?  and 
in  the  analogous  one  of  those  who,  not  content  with  writing 
their  names  in  their  bo«»ks,  in  the  pride  of  property  add  Am 
or  her  book?  If  the  first  appearance  of  the  phrase  was  on 
titlepages,  we  should  have  less  difficulty  in  accounting  for 
it. 

There  is  still  another  idiom  mentioned  by  G.  C.  L.,  that 
in  which  we  subjoin  the  genitive  to  the  preposition  of.  This 
he  explains  ia  the  usual  way,  namely  that  a  picture  of  the 
king'^  stands  for  a  picture  of  the  kings  pictures.  1  confess 
however  that  I  feel  some  doubt  whether  this  phrase  is  indeed 
to  be  regarded  as  elliptical,  that  is,  whether  the  phrase  in 
room  of  which  it  is  said  to  stand,  was  ever  actually  in  use. 
It  has  sometimes  struck  me  thai  this  may  be  a  relic  of  the 
old  practice  of  using  the  genitive  after  nouns  as  well  as  be- 
fore them,  only  with  the  insertion  of  the  preposition  of 
One  of  the  passages  quoted  above  from  Arnold's  chronicle 
supplies  an  instance  of  a  genitive  so  situated  :  and  one  cannot 
help  thinking  that  it  was  the  notion  that  of  governed  the 
genitive,  that  led  the  old  translators  of  Virgil  to  call  his  poem 
the  booke  of  Eneidus,  as  it  is  termed  by  Phaer,  and  Gawin 
Douglas,  and  in  the  translation  printed  by  Caxtun.  Else 
it  may  be  that  we  put  the  genitive  after  the  noun  in  such 
caAes,  in  order  to  express  those  relations  which  are  most  ap- 
propriately exprest  by  the  genitive  preceding  it.  A  picture 
of  the  king  is  something  very  different  from  the  kings  picture  : 
and  so  many  other  relations  are  designated  by  of  with  the 
objective  noun,  that,  if  we  wish  to  denote  possession  thereby, 
it  leaves  an  ambiguity  :  so  for  this  purpose,  when  we  want 
to  subjoin  the  name  of  the  possessor  to  the  thing  possest,  wo 
have  recourse  to  the  genitive,  by  prefixing  which  we  are  wont 
to  express  the  same  idea.  At  all  events  as,  if  we  were  askt 
whose  castle  Alnwick  is,  we  should  answer,  the  Duke  of  Nor- 
thumbertand's,  so  we  should  also  say  what  a  grand  castle 
that  i*  of  the  Duke  of  Northumherland's  I  without  at  all 
taking  into  account  whether  he  had  other  castles  besides ;  and 
and  our  uxpressiuii  would  be  c<pially  appropriate  wlKther  he 
had  or  not. 


362  Mi9celianeou8  Observatioru. 

Before  I  close  these  remarks  I  must  repeat  that  I  am 
but  too  well  aware  how  very  imperfect  they  are,  and  that 
these  questions  require  much  more  thought  and  much  more 
research  to  be  answered  in  a  satisfactory  manner :  but  these 
unfortunately  it  is  not  at  present  in  my  power  to  give  to 
them  ;  nor  should  I  have  toucht  on  them  till  I  had  tried 
to  fit  myself  for  the  task  by  the  necessary  investigations,  but 
that  I  thought  myself  in  a  manner  bound  to  take  some  notice 
of  G.  C.  L.^s  suggestions.  If  the  reader  will  not  accept 
this  apology,  let  him  shame  me  by  treating  the  subject  as 
it  ought  to  be  treated,  so  that  in  the  midst  of  my  shame 
I  may  at  least  have  the  pleasure  of  being  set  right  and  of 
acknowledging  my  obligations  to  him  for  clearing  up  a 
question  which  I  may  be  thought  to  have  left  more  perplext 
than  I  found  it. 

J.  C.  H. 


ON    THE    USE    OV    DEFINITIONS. 


Ti!i:hk  appears  to  be  a  jicrsuasion  pretty  widely  preva- 
lent, that  definitions  of  terms  may  be  of  great  use  in  getting 
al  truth,  even  in  cases  of  seeming  doubt  and  difficulty.  When 
two  eager  disputants  bogiu  to  argue  systematically,  the  attempt 
generally  leads  very  soon  to  a  demand  for  a  definition  on  one 
side  or  the  other;  a  demand,  liouever,  which  does  not  in  most 
cases  materially  shorten  or  elucidate  the  debate.  And  it  Iia.-* 
been  much  the  habit  for  systematical  writers  on  the  conduct 
of  the  understanding  to  assure  us  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  <lisputes  which  are  carried  on  among  men,  are  merely 
cjuarrels  about  words,  which  would  vanish  if  men  would  only 
define  the  terms  they  use.  Some  of  these  writers  indeed  have 
complained  of  the  ingrulitiide  with  which  controversialists 
usually  receive  the  proposal  to  terminate  their  contest  by 
proving  that  it  turns  un  the  ambiguity  of  words;  and  they 
inform  us  that  the  persons  concerned  often  take  such  a  sug- 
gestion as  an  afi'ront,  and  forthwith  bestow  upon  the  mediator 
even  more  ill-will  than  they  feel  towards  their  opponents'. 

If  both  litigants  conceive  that  the  judge  who  thus  volun- 
teers his  services,  proves,  by  his  summing  up,  that  he  has 
taken  a  very  incomplete  view  of  the  matter  in  dispute,  and 
feci  that  they  arc  contending  to  establish  views  and  systems 
substantially  different  in  their  consequences  and  cfTects,  even 
though  they  may  not  have  shewn  the  most  eicact  knowledge 
of  forms  in  the  selection  of  the  issue  on  which  they  have  put 
the  question,  it  is  |jerhaps  very  natural  that  they  should  still 
listen  with  some  impatience  and  peevishness  to  a  person  who 
«8surc.<i  them  they  are  fighting  about  nothing. 

Whether  in  such  cases,  the  promulgation,  by  any  bene- 
volent   philosopher,   of  definitions   of  the   terms  mainly   cm- 
iSrtyed  in  the  discnssion,  tends  much  to  bring  the  parties,  or 
^^'^  the  uiajonty  of  impartial  and  intelligent  bystanders,  to 


vo»n.  vo 


■  U'h»tely'ji  BkmpUM  lj<ciun».  |i. 
L  I. 


I.  IIK. 


S64 


On  ike   Use  of  D^nitionn. 


ail  agreement  upon  thu  subject  discussed,  seems,  so  far  as 
experience  shews,  to  be  far  from  certain.  It  is  however  a 
question  much  too  wide  for  these  pages.  Uut  it  may  not 
be  unsuitable  to  this  place  to  treat  the  matter  in  a  more 
philological  manner,  and  to  shew  by  some  instances  how  the 
adoption  of  exact  definitions,  and  the  consequent  introduction 
of  fixed  technical  terms,  appears  to  have  been  connected  with 
the  progress  of  real  and  curtain  knowlctlgc  in  those  branches 
of  human  speculation  which  are  now  considered  to  be  past 
all  danger  frtMu  controversy. 

It  will  be  found,  it  is  conceived,  that  in  these  cases 
exact  deiinitions  have  been,  not  the  causes,  but  the  conse- 
quences of  an  advance  in  our  knowledge:  that  terms  have 
been  vague  and  ambiguous  and  ill-defined,  so  long  as  mcn^s 
perception  of  the  laws  of  facts  was  obscure  and  incomplete: 
that  new  discoveries,  even  while  imperfect  and  confused,  in- 
troduced new  terms,  not  admitting  probably  of  strict  defini- 
tion, but  yet  not  without  their  use:  that  when  the  laws  so 
discovered  became  clear  and  entire,  the  requisite  terms  were 
easily  and  immediately  provided  «'ilh  a  greater  exactness  of 
meaning.  In  these,  the  progressive  sciences,  the  case  has 
been  that  tlie  real  logoinachies  have  takeu  place  among  those 
who  attached  much  importance  to  definitions ;  who,  having 
nothing  to  add  to  human  knowledge,  wished  to  alter  the  mode 
of  presenting  that  which  was  already  known.  Persons  thus 
ready  to  wrangle  about  the  meaning  of  words  have  been 
found  at  every  stage  of  the  progress  of  truth  :  but  truth 
has  generally  passed  rapidly  forward)),  aiul  left  them  behind 
to  enjoy  their  favourite  amuscmenl. 

We  shall  take  a  few  instances  of  scientific  terms  and 
their  definitions,  beginning  with  the  most  exact  and  complete 
sciences. 

Pure  mathematics  (Geometry  and  Analysis)  can  hardly 
supply  us  with  a  case  in  point ;  for  in  such  speculations 
there  can  be,  properly  .speaking,  no  tiew  truth;  none,  that 
is,  which  was  not  necessarily  involved  in  what  we  knew 
before.  In  the  provinces  of  physical  philosophy,  definitionp 
are  needed  to  e.vpress  the  principles  from  which  our  reasoniu'' 
must  proceed ;  but  in  pure  niathomatics  the  definitions  '"'^ 
themselves  the  first  principles  of  our  reHsoningn;    and  if 


On  the  Uve  of  De/iniHuTitf. 


365 


be  complete  we  need  no  other  materials  of  knowledge.  The 
example  of  geometry,  therefore,  gives  us  no  encouragement 
to  endeavour  to  make  other  sciences  equally  complete  and 
logical,  by  selecting  such  definitions  as  will  but  lend  them- 
selves to  our  syllogistic  process;  except  we  can  find  other 
science*)  wliich,  like  geometry,  ore  independent  of  the  ex- 
ternal world,  and  require  no  verification  of  their  principles 
by  experience. 

Mechanics  h  the  most  perfect  of  the  branches  of  mixed 
mathematics.  It  has  also  been  the  most  happy  in  its  defi- 
nitions. But  its  happiness  consisted  in  this;  that  mechanical 
philosophers  resolved  Wforehand  to  employ  words  in  such 
a  manner,  that  those  laws  of  nature  which  experience  proved 
to  be  ^rwe,  should  be  expressed  in  the  simplest  terms. 
Galileo  and  his  opjiouents  agreed  in  asserting  that  l)odies, 
falling  by  the  action  of  gravity*  were  uniformly  accelerated  : 
but  there  was  a  real  question  between  ihera,  whether  the 
velocity  increased  proportionallv  to  the  space,  or  to  the  time. 
When  the  latter  appeared  to  be  the  fact,  it  was  no  longer 
conteste<l  that  the  expression  shovild  be  appropriated  to  this 
law,  and  disjoined  from  the  other.  The  definititm  follatced 
the  settlement  of  the  dispute. 

In  Optics  such  terms  as  *  the  angle  of  inridencc''  *  of  re- 
fraction,' &c.  were  introduced  after  it  had  been  found  that 
the  appearances  of  objects  were  governed  by  the  course  of 
the  rays  of  light  passing  from  them  to  the  eye,  and  that 
the  course  of  these  rays,  when  they  fell  on  transparent  bodies, 
was  regulated  by  the  angle  they  made  witli  the  surface. 
A  lady  who  was  describing  an  optical  experiment  which  had 
been  shewn  her  by  a  great  philosopher,  said,  "  He  talked 
alxiut  increasing  and  diminishing  the  angle  of  incidence ;  and 
at  last  I  found  he  only  meant  moWng  my  head  up  and 
down.""  The  philosopher's  phraseology  would  have  been  far 
less  commendable  than  the  lady's,  if  he  had  not  known  that 
his  terms  referred  to  an  fssential,  and  lier's  to  an  accidental, 
condition  of  the  experiment.  If  he  had  defined  the  angle 
of  incidence  to  be  that  which  is  increased  by  moving  the 
head  up  and  diminished  by  moving  it  down,  he  might  have 
deduced  geometrical  inferences  from  his  definition,  but  he 
would  not  have  been  able  to  sec  the  image  by  the  help  of  them. 


I 


266  Oft  the   Use  of  Dejin\t\tm$. 

A  most  curious  a!«t»embluge  of  optical  plienotnena  have 
attracted  attention  of  late  years,  which  have  been  gruupe<i 
tinder  the  terra  "  polaribatiou.*'^  Tlie  plieiiomeiia  are  some- 
what complex,  and  the  theory  of  them  was,  at  least  till  lately, 
uuexplained ;  so  that  no  very  rapid  or  popular  exposition 
of  them  was  possible.  In  consequence  of  this  it  happened, 
that  when  a  person  to  whom  the  word  polarisation  was  new, 
enquired  the  meaning  of  it,  there  was.  geficrully  found  some 
one,  who,  too  well  informed  to  suspect  a  latent  meaning, 
wuuld  answer  "It  is  something  of  which  the  philosophers 
themselves  know  nothing;  they  call  it  polarisation;  they  might 
OS  well  call  it  a,  an  unknown  quantity."  Yet  thoee  who 
had  attended  to  the  subject  a  little  more  patiently,  knew  that 
this  wurd,  though  with  something  of  vagueness,  indicated 
sety  significantly  both  the  general  diaractcr  of  the  facts, 
and  tiic  history  of  the  attempts  made  to  explain  them.  It 
might  be  difficult  to  give  a  definition  of  the  term ;  but  it 
implied  a  general  circumstance  belongiag  to  alt  the  experi- 
ments ;  namely  *'  an  opposition  of  ])rt)|XTlies,  assuciated  with 
an  opposition  of  positions;^  a  circumstance  eummun  to  these 
facts,  and  to  thoee  of  magnetic  polarity.  Now  that  the 
miiiulalory  theory  of  liglit  is  conceived  to  be  satisfactorily 
established,  we  may,  if  we  please,  say  that  "  a  ray  is  jw- 
larieed  in  a  certain  plane,  when  it  consitits  of  vibratiorK 
perpendicular  to  tliat  plane;"  but  wc  may  presume  that  no 
one  will  assert,  that  the  indistinctness  of  ideas  which  for- 
merly prevailed  upon  this  subject,  existed  because  it  did 
not  occur  to  any  one  to  propound  this  definition.  The  de- 
finition is  a  result  of  the  establishment  of  the  theory* 

As  we  advance  to  sciences  which  are  as  yet  in  a  mor^ 
incomplete  state,  it  becomes  more  and  more  evident  how 
im|X}ssiblc  it  is  for  us  to  jwssess  exact  definitions,  except  in 
proportion  as  our  knowledge  becomes  general  and  systematic. 
When  did  Chemistry  acquire  that  symmetrical  nomenclature 
which  has  been  so  much  admired.^  The  moment  that 
Lavuisier  had  established  the  true  theory  of  the  combina- 
tions of  elements  with  the  acidifying  principle.  His  account 
of  the  comjwsition  of  ]its  treatise  is  remarkable.  "  While 
I  tliought  myself  employed."  he  says*  *'  only  in  forming 
a   nomenclature,    and    while    I    purpnsctl    to    myself    luithinp 


On  the   Uw  uf  Dejinitiotia, 


267 


more  than  to  improve  the  chemicul  knguage,  my  work 
transformed  itself,  by  degrees,  and  withuul  my  being  able 
to  prevent  it,  into  a  treatise  upon  the  elements  of  chemistry." 
And  if  any  one  would  undertake  to  make  definitions  without 
a  knowledge  of  facts,  and  the  laws  of  facts,  let  him  try 
his  skill  ii\K>t\  the  words,  at'id  and  alkali;  words  recognised 
08  of  great  importance  ever  since  chemistry  was  written 
U[)oii ;  but  to  this  dav  afflicting  to  learners,  frum  the  want 
of  a  classical  definition  of  each,  and  from  the  debates  pre- 
valent among  tht-  highest  authorities  concerning  their  boun- 
dary lines. 

Within  this  few  years,  names,  accompanied  by  defini- 
tions, have  IxH-'H  proposwl  for  clift'erent  kinds  of  rioudny 
by  Mr  Howard.  If  the  manufacture  of  definitions  were  an 
arbitrary  process,  which  might  be  executed  ot  one  period  of 
a  science  as  well  as  at  another,  we  mip;ht  have  expected  that 
tlicse  objects,  so  universally  talked  of  and  sj>eculatcd  upon, 
would  have  long  ago  been  classified  and  named.  No  one 
however  us  yet,  had  thought  of  defining  a  ''  mare's  taiP'  or 
a  *'  mackarel  sky.^"  But  Mr  Howard  hail  studied  the  laws 
of  the  formation  of  clouds,  and  the  sequence  of  atnionpheric 
phenomena  connected  with  them :  and  hencf  his  terras,  so 
constructeti  as  to  be  subservient  to  the  description  of  such 
connexions,  have  already  obtained  u  very  general  currency. 
His  names  are  Iwrrowed  from  the  Latin  :  one  of  his  fol- 
lowers has  onduavDurcd  to  givt  u.'i  equivalents  for  them  of 
an  EngliHh,  or  at  least,  Teutonic  form:  but  to  these  proffered 
translations  Mr  Howard  objects.  We  will  give  both  sets 
of  terms. 


I  Cirrus 

Cnrt  cloud. 

Cumulostratus 

Ticain  cloud. 

7   Stratus 

Fall  ctmid. 


3  Cirrocunmlu.s 

Sonder  chud. 

5  Cunudus 

S/twken  cloud. 


ti  Cirrostratus 
Wane  cloud. 
6  Nimbus 
Rain  cloud. 


*'  The  names"  Mr  Howard  ^ays,  "  which  I  deduced  from 
the  Latin,  were  intendi.tl  to  describe  the  strurlure  of  tlu 
clouds,  and  the  meaning  of  eneh  was  carefullv  fixed  by  a 
definition.      The   observer    having  oucc  made  himself  master 


268  Oh  the   Ihe  of  Dejitutiom. 

of  this,  was  able  ti)  apply  the  term  with  correctness,  after  a 
little  experience,  to  the  subject  under  all  its  varieties  of 
colour,  form,  or  position.^ 

By  tiie  ailoption  of  such  names  and  definitions  it  becomes 
possible  to  make  ^neral  assertions  concerning  the  effects  of 
clouds.  The  posHihility  of  doinj^  this  is  the  condition  and 
the  proof  of  the  wientiKc  propriety  itnd  value  of  the  nomen- 
clature just  noticed,  and  of  any  other. 

Cuvier,  with  great  philosophical  justice,  applies  this  test 
to  shew  the  absurdity  of  a  classiiiration,  and  consequently 
of  a  nomenclature,  which  had  been  adojited  in  another  branch 
of  science.  Zoology.  "  Gmelin"  he  says,  *'  by  putting  the 
lamantin  in  the  gtnus  of  morses,  and  the  mrene  in  that 
of  an^iilieny  had  rendered  any  (general  proposition  with  re- 
gard to  their  organisation  impossible,'"  To  deiine  a  lamantin 
to  be  or  not  to  be  a  morse,  does  not  merely  make  one  pro- 
position true  instead  of  another,  but  decides  whether  there 
shall  be  any  true  proposition  at  all :  and  to  know  whether 
it  is  to  be  so  defined,  we  must  first  kuuw  the  analogies  of  or- 
ganisation which  it  is  the  business  of  HcientiRc  language  to 
express. 

In  another  branch  of  natural  history,  the  inconvenience 
which  arises  from  the  assumption  that  any  one  may  construct 
or  appropriate  names,  without  regulating  himself  by  any 
general  views,  has  been  most  oppressively  felt.  We  speak 
of  Mineralogy.  Here  the  general  principles  of  classification 
being  still  in  utter  obscurity  and  confusion,  there  has  been 
nothing  to  prevent  any  one  from  giving  new  names  to  new 
sjn?cimcns,  without  ascertaining  whether  they  were  related  to 
minerals  already  named,  as  another  genus,  another  species,  an- 
other variety,  or,  it  may  be,  another  fragment  of  the  same 
mass.  It  may  easily  be  supposed  that  this  unrestrained  licence 
has  filled  our  mincralogieul  books  with  a  mob  of  names,  desti- 
tute of  arrangement  and  subordination,  and  consec|uently  of  use. 
Kven  eminent  pliih»sophers  have  not  abtstaineil  from  adding 
to  the  croud.  Sir  J.  Herschel  has  called  one  substance 
i.fUiHtct/clit(\  because  with  polarised  light  it  gives  black  and 
white  rings:  Sir  David  Hrcwster  has  named  another  mineral 
Tei'se/iie,  hiiaiLW  examined  in  the  same  way  it  .ippeara  to  be 
constructed    of   sevi-rnl    pieces   of    different    properties    joined 


On   thfi   Use  tif  Dejinitlona. 


32ti9 


toj^tlier.  But  in  the  menntinie  we  are  still  ignorant  in  what 
measure'  the  optical  properties  of  niineral.s  depend  either  t)n 
their  physical  or  their  chemical  nature :  so  that  we  niuy  have 
Hubstances,  not  externully  diHltnguishuble  from  HerscheKs  Leu- 
cocyclite  or  Brewster's  Teaselite,  and  yet,  we  shall  not  be  able 
to  tell  whether  we  are  to  call  them  by  such  names,  till  we 
have  subjected  Ihom  to  the  very  optical  experiments  by  which 
the  phenomena  are  elicited.  And  if  we  find  that  they  arc  thus, 
by  definition,  Leucocyclite  and  Tesnelite,  wc  shall  still  be 
ignorant  whether  our  specimens  agree  in  chemical  conip<Jsition 
with  those  whicli  suggested  the  names  to  Hersehel  and  to 
Brewtfter.  Such  are  the  inevitable  embarrassments  which  arise 
from  defining  without  jjossessiiig  a  system ;  from  naming 
objects  without  knowing  their  relation  to  other  objects. 

If  we  want  decisive  evidence  of  the  way  in  which  the 
possibility  of  gootJ  names  necessarily  implies  much  previous 
knowledge,  we  may  find  such  cvitlence  in  the  progress  of 
Geology.  The  terms  now  used  in  that  science,  to  designate 
the  various  strata,  albeit  harsh  and  rugged  in  many  instances, 
are  of  signal  use  and  value,  because  tliey  express  the  result 
fii  a  laborious  examination  and  classification  of  the  real 
materials  of  the  earth.  Guehs  and  kUUm,  roral  rag  anti  rnni- 
bra^hy  are  of  service  in  enunciating  intelbgible  general  pro- 
positions with  regard  to  the  structure  of  this  and  other 
countries ;  and  therefore  sound  harmonious  to  a  pliilusuphi- 
cal  ear.  And  their  music  is  but  little  impaired  by  the  con- 
sideration that  they  arc  not  susceptible  of  exact  definition ;  or 
that  the  literal  meaning  of  the  terms  used  does  not  suggest 
the  most  cbaracteriatie  attributes  of  the  thing  signified.  At 
oue  of  the  meetings  of  the  Geological  S(K-iety  of  London,  u 
memoir  was  read  on  "  The  Green  SantT  by  an  eminent 
member  of  the  Society.  At  these  meetings,  the  readings  are 
fallowed  by  oral  discussions,  tisuallv  conducted  with  a  rare 
mixture  of  aeutcness  and  good  breeding.  On  the  occasion 
just  mentioned,  a  distinguished  geologist,  well  known  both 
for  the  extent  of  his  knowledge  and  the  fastidiousness  of  his 
taste,  stated  that  he  had  three  objections  to  the  Title  of  the 
paper: — First,  to  the  article  The^  since  there  are  several 
green  sands:  second  to  the  adjective  Oreeti^  since  the  stratum 
spoken  of  i«  more   commonly  retl :    third  to  the   substantive 


9^0  On  the  Use  of  Dejitiitiotia. 

Sand,  becatist!  in  maiiy  places  it  is  more  calcareous  thaii 
siliceoui).  The  iiubtletv  uf  this  criticism  was  applauded: 
but  the  iiuiiie  »till  keeps  it8  gruutuU  aiid  is  to  this  day  a  good 
and  sorviceaWo  name,  inasmuch  as  it  is  universally  under- 
atood  tn  designate  certain  members  in  a  known  and  widely 
extended  series  of  strata.  If  the  writer  of  the  memoir  had 
been  compelled  to  arrest  his  researches  till  he  had  secured 
himself  against  such  attacks,  or  if  he  should  suspend  the  j)ub- 
lication  of  them,  till  he  can  begin  his  vork  with  a  definition 
of  The  Green  Sand,  imimpeachable  by  logical  or  philf>sophi- 
cal  rules,  those  who  desire  the  increase  of  geological  know- 
ledge will  have  little  reason  to  think  definitions  promote  their 
interests. 

The  reader  who  has  followed  this  (rain  of  examples  so  far, 
will  have  little  difticulty  in  perceiving  that  the  same  reflexions 
nii^ht  be  made  with  respect  to  any  other  assendtlage  of  facts 
which  can  become  the  subject  of  classification.  If,  for  instauce, 
we  consider  the  languages  of  the  earth,  what  a  lung  and  com- 
prehensive labour  of  comparison  was  gone  through  before  phi- 
lologers  had  a  clear  view  of  the  classes  of  languages  which  are 
now  termed  the  Indo-European  and  the  Semitic!  And  how 
little  would  it  have  contributed  to  the  [)rogress  of  philological 
knowledge,  if,  before  this  lalxjur  had  l)een  gone  through,  men 
had  used  the  word  Semitic,  and  defined  it  to  mean  "the 
languages  spoken  by  the  descendants  of  Shorn,*'  without  know- 
ing whether  these  languages  resembled  each  other  more  thau 
Arabic  and  Latin  ! 

And  wliat  is  true  of  the  languages  of  nations  is  surely 
no  less  true  of  any  otlier  circuntstances  in  which  they  may 
resemble  or  differ:  of  their  modes  of  life,  their  social  struc- 
ture, the  amount  and  distribution  of  their  means  of  sub- 
sistence,  of  luxury*  of  greatness.  In  contemplating  all  such 
subjects  on  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth,  we  may,  and,  if 
our  facts  arc  laboriously  collected  and  well  comparetl,  in  the 
end  we  shall,  arrive  at  general  classifications ;  perhaps  at 
gcnoral  laws  of  connexion  and  causation.  Voyages  and  travels, 
history  and  legislation,  politics  and  statistics,  will  all  he  needed 
as  materials  for  such  a  survey,  and  such  a  result.  And  whoi 
we  have  reached  this  point,  then^  indeed,  terms  to  designate 
our  classes,  definitions  to  unable  us  to  express  our  lows,  will 


Oi  the  Use  of  Dejtnithna.  371 

l>e  wanted ;  and  there  con  be  little  doubt  that  then  wc  shall 
have  no  great  difficulty  in  laying  our  hands  on  such  terms. 
But  if  at  first  and  at  once,  before  our  classification  is  begun, 
we  define  terms,  we  deduce  laws,  we  assert  these  to  be  univer- 
sally true,  wc  cast  about  in  each  case  for  modes  of  evading 
the  discrepancy  between  the  rules  which  we  promulgate  and 
those  which  the  course  of  human  affairs  follows,  what  are  we 
to  expect  ?  From  -what  has  preceded,  the  answer  is  clear. 
We  are  not  to  expect  to  attain  any  knowledge  which  will  be 
applicable  to  facts,  except  the  progress  of  f/iis  science  should 
follow  rules  and  conditions  altogether  different  from  those 
which  any  other  progressive  science  has  ever  yet  followed. 

What  is  this  science?  the  science  which  thus  attempts  to 
trace  the  laws  which  determine  the  the  polity,  the  economical 
structure,  the  wealth  of  nations?  Is  it  Political  Economy? 
Probably  not :  for  the  most  celebrated  teachers  of  that  science 
speak  with  scorn  of  the  prospect  of  collecting  their  principles 
by  this  slow  and  laborious  process  of  observation  and  com- 
parison. Their  truths  are  to  flow  from  the  inexhaustible  foun- 
tain of  df^nition  without  previous  knowledge  and  rlwudjiva'- 
tiofi  of  facts.  So  that  Political  Economy  must  be  a  branch 
of  metaphysics,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Bacon  truly 
as.serts  that  Geometry  is  so. 

But  the  science  which  treats  of  the  wealth  of  nations,  Oiat 
is  of  the  wealtli  which  they  actually  have,  and  not  of  that 
which,  according  to  certain  suppositions,  they  would  have,  is 
still  a  province  of  human  knowledge  worthy  some  of  our  notice. 
And  in  this,  a  science  of  observation,  we  must  expect  to  find 
the  same  rules  regulating  our  progress  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  have  hitherto  governed  the  progress  of  other  sciences  of 
observation.  We  must  expect  that  we  shall  be  able  to  obtain 
definitions  worth  putting  into  words,  only  so  far  as  wc  succeed 
in  classifying  facts,  and  discovering  some  traces  of  law.  For 
instance,  if  wc  compare  the  payments  made  by  the  «ccuj)iers 
of  the  soil  to  the  owners  of  it,  in  different  countries,  we  may 
call  them  all  by  the  common  term  reiU,  liecause  sticb  an  a]>- 
plication  of  the  word  aj>])eiirs  to  be  consistent  with  eonuiititi 
usage.  But  if  we  are  rash  enough  to  give  a  dejinifimi  of  the 
amount  of  rent,  depending  upon  some  conjectural  liy|X)thesis 
or  special  accident,  as  for  instance,  on  the  possibility  of 
Vol.  U-  No.  5.  M  m 


I 


removing  farming 

low   trtiding  pruiits;    our   chance 

our  enquiry  is  gone: 

Ibi  omnis 
Effusus  labor. 
There  is  an  end  at  once  of  all  hope  of  our  carrying  with  us 
into  the  light  of  day  the  fair  form  of  Truth  which  we  trusted 
was  accompanying  our  steps. 

While  we  ai'e  endeavouring  to  discern  the  classes  and  laws 
of  factfi,  it  may  liappen  that  we  are  upbraided  for  duligliting 
in  darkness,  because  we  find  that  it  requires  time  and  cITurt  to 
make  our  way  to  the  light;  the  thief»  it  may  be  said,  after 
Humer,  delights  in  the  mist'.  It  may  be  supposed  that  they 
who  say  this,  lind  that  the  mist  in  their  neighbourhood  is  dis- 
persed or  converted  into  a  luminous  halo  by  the  mere  bright- 
ness of  their  hnne.sty ;  we  can  only  say,  that  we  discern  no 
heads  encircled  by  such  a  glory.  It  may  be  said  that  the  pick- 
pocket loves  to  put  out  the  lamps'.  It  might  be  supposed  that 
this  diguifiL'd  rebuke  can  proceed  from  none  but  some  member 
of  the  venerable  eorparutiun  of  The  Lamplighters:  but  it  touches 
not  us:  for  wc  complain  that  these,  our  worshipful  masters, 
do  indeed  set  up  an  abundant  supply  of  lamps  of  all  sorts  of 
sizes  and  shapes;  and  ever  and  anon,  when  men  complain  of 
darkness,  construct  and  put  forth  another  and  another;  but 
that  all  this  avails  us  not,  so  long  as  there  is  in  these  lamps 
no  drop  of  oil,  no  provision  of  enlightening  matter.  The  way 
is  just  a«  dark  as  ever,  and  the  only  consequence  is  that,  in 
addition  to  other  lumber,  we  stumble  over  the  lamps  them- 
selves. 

W. 


*  Mlisttly'fl  Lecture  on  PolitioU  Kcaaomj.  IflSS. 


Mbid. 


ON    THE    ATTIC    DIONYSIA. 


Thk  Attic  festivals  which  were  signalized  by  dramatic 
exhibitions  have  naturally  l)een  objects  of  peculiar  interest 
to  the  learned,  nor  ought  it  to  be  believed  that  the  attention 
bcBtowed  on  them  has  been  misplaced.  Not  only  would  our 
knowledge  of  antiquity  he  imperfect  without  a  clear  and 
correct  notion  of  the  outward  conditions  and  occasions  that 
determined  the  production  of  those  masterpieces  of  dramatic 
art  which  are  among  the  most  precious  treasures  bequeathed 
to  us  by  the  genius  of  Greece,  but  the  stii{ly  of  these  great 
works  themselves  would  often  by  tlie  same  defect  be  deprived 
of  important  aids,  in  its  endeavours  to  appreliend  their  pecu- 
liar character  and  relations.  It  is  not  however  on  this  ground 
alone  that  any  one  who  duly  prizes  the  value  of  ancient  lite- 
rature ought  to  rest  the  utility  of  such  researches.  It  is  not 
a  prudent,  but  a  feeble  and  timid  spirit  that  dissuades  us  from 
indulging  our  curiosity  in  literary  or  scientific  inquiries,  before 
we  have  accurately  calculated  the  importance  of  the  result  we 
expect  to  obtain  from  them.  However  diminutive  may  be 
the  object  that  attracts  us  in  any  new  direction  across  the 
boundless  field  of  antiquity,  we  may  safely  abandon  ourselves 
to  the  impulse  which  urges  us  to  investigate  it.  Even  if  we 
should  not  find  any  use  to  which  it  is  immediately  applicable, 
we  shall  assuredly  be  rewarded  for  our  labour,  not  merely 
by  the  invigorating  effect  of  the  exercise,  but  by  the  air  we 
shall  breathe,  the  new  views  that  will  open  on  us,  and  the 
flowers  that  we  shall   gather  in  our  way. 

This  remark  has  been  beautifully  illustrated  by  Profes- 
sor Boeckh  in  an  essay  on  the  Attic  Dionysia,  published  in 
J8I9  among  the  Transactions  of  the  Berlin  Academy  of 
Sciences,  to  which  it  was  read  in  the  year  I817.  In  this 
paper  the  author  ha.i  taken  an  entirely  new  view  of  a  ques- 
tion which  had  been  long  agitated  by  philologists,  and  which 
appeared  to  have  been  at  length  completely  decided,  as  to  the 


i 


27^  On  the  Attic  Dionyaia. 

identity  of  the  Len^a  witJi  one  or  other  of  the  Dionysinn 
festivals  which  arc  known  to  us  under  different  names.  The 
opinion  maintained  after  Selden  and  Corsini  by  Kuhnken'y 
that  the  Lena?a  coincided  with  the  Anthesteria,  had  been  re- 
ceived by  the  learned  with  general  acquiescence,  and  had  been 
adopted  by  Boeckh  himself  in  his  work  De  trageedi^  Grtec<e 
priticipibitSy  with  some  modification*  suggested  by  Spalding, 
who  has  di8cusse<l  the  subject  in  his  preface  to  liis  edition  of 
the  Oration  against  Meidias,  and  in  a  Latin  essay  De  Diony^ 
siic  Athcnien&iuin  festOy  publi&Iicd  in  the  Berlin  Transactions 
of  ]804~1RI1.  But  in  the  year  IHl?  the  author  of  a  thick 
volume  on  the  ancient  comic  theatre  of  Athens'  took  up  the 
question,  and  ainung  a  number  of  paradoxical  opinions  pecu- 
liar to  himself,  asserted  one  which  had  already  been  sanctioned 
by  many  great  names,  that  of  the  identity  between  the  LensM 
and  the  Rural  Dionysia.  Hermann  shortly  after  gave  new 
importance  to  this  opinion  by  a  review  of  the  work,  in  which, 
after  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  arguments  advanced  by 
the  contending  parties,  he  declared  himself  on  the  side  of 
Ruhiiken^s  opponents.  It  was  apparently  this  revival  of  the 
controversy  that  induced  Boeckh  to  investigate  it  afresh.  The 
result  of  his  researches  seems  to  be  almost  entirely  unknown  to 
the  English  public :  at  least  n»  notice  has  been  taken  of  it,  so 
far  as  the  uTiter  knows,  in  any  of  the  works  since  published  in 
England  relating  to  this  branch  of  ancient  literature,  and  in 
Mr  Ciinton''s  Fasti  Ruhnken^s  dtKtrine  is  assumed  as  finally 
established,  with  the  remark  that  he  "had  poured  upon  the 
Anthesteria  so  clear  a  light,  that  the  subject  is  placed  beyond 
the  reach  of  doubt  or  controversy."  (i.  p.SSSi).  We  shall  at 
all  events  not  rate  Boeckh's  labours  tiw  highly,  if  we  venture 
to  say,  that  this  is  no  longer  the  state  of  the  question,  at 
least  in  the  same  sense:  and  his  name  is  sufficient  with  all 
lovers  of  learning  to  ensure  a  patient  and  respectful  attention 
for  his  views  and  arguments.      It  is  not  therefore  for  laying 

*  Auct.  Kmend.  nd  IlMych.  \i.  091.  He  hu  rommitted  a  lingtilu  mistake  in 
rUiining  Seali^er,  Cusaubou,  aucl  PeUvius,  as  o^lvocutea  of  hiii  own  opinion.  The 
two  foiuicr  (Uc  &11.  Temp.  p.  2y.  Dc  Sat.  Pcmmi.  i.  v.  p,  12.1  Ramb.  ad  Thcophtoal. 
p.  lai)  distinctly  mrasn  ihe  identity  of  the  Lcnira  ami  the  niral  DionyBJa.  (8ee  also 
Canobon  ad  Alhen.  An.  r.  c  IB.)     Petavius  atl  Thcut.  p.  M'i  F.  tacitly  admiu  iu 

'  KanngieMcr.  I>ic  uhc  komiKhe  Buebnc  in  .\thcn.  1U17.  ■* 


On  Ihe  AtHe  Dumygia.  2^5 

them  before  the  philological  public  that  any  apology  can  be 
required.  But  it  is  necessary  to  explain  and  justify  to  the 
reader  the  mode  in  which  this  has  been  done  in  the  following 
pages.  He  will  find  here  not  a  translation,  nor  a  detailed  ana* 
lysis  of  the  original  essay,  but  a  free  description  of  it,  intended 
to  comprize  wliat  is  most  important  and  interesting  in  its  con- 
tents. The  motive  for  using  this  freedom  was,  that  the  length 
of  the  original,  near  eighty  quarto  pages,  very  far  exceeded 
the  space  which  could  have  been  allowed  for  it  in  our  Journal, 
while  it  seemed  possible  to  curtail  many  parts  without  impair- 
ing the  force  of  the  argument,  or  doing  wrong  to  the  opposite 
side.  The  reader  indeed  will  perhaps  not  be  able  from  this 
summary  fully  to  appreciate  the  vidue  of  Hermann's  reason- 
ing: but  he  will  regret  this  the  less,  because  it  was  not  di- 
rected against  the  opinion  proposed  by  Boeckh,  but  applied 
only  to  the  two  between  whicli  the  choice  of  the  learned  had 
till  then  been  divided. 

The  order  pursued  in  the  following  abridgement  corre- 
sponds to  that  of  the  original.  We  ehall  ctmsider  the  subject 
under  seven  heads: 

I.  Evidence  as  to  the  time  of  the  year  when  the  Lena^an 
festival  was  originally  celebrated  : 

II.  Express  testimonies  of  the  ancients  to  the  coincidence 
of  the  Lemean  festival  with  either  of  those  with  which  it  has 
been  supposed  to  be  identical,  or  to  the  contrary  effect: 

III.  Arguments  drawn  from  the  locality  of  the  festival: 

IV.  Arguments  drawn  from  allusions  to  the  subject  in 
Aristopbnnes: 

V.  Arguments  drawn  from  the  mode  in  which  the  festival 
was  celebrated : 

VI.  Arguments  drawn  from  its  occasion  and  nature: 

VII.  Traditions  of  the  ancients  as  to  tlie  introduction  of 
the  worship  of  Bacchu.^  into  Attica: 

I.  The  first  object  of  our  inquiry  is  the  month  in  which 
the  Lenaea  were  celebrated.  That  tlie  rural  Dionysia  were 
celebrated  in  Foseidcon,  and  the  Antheateria  in  Antheslerion, 
is  admitted  on  all  hands.  The  name  Lena*a  clearly  points  to 
that  of  the  month  Lcnicon,  which  was  unquestionably  derived 
from  it.  The  earliest  mention  of  Lenn^n  occurs  in  Ilesiod, 
who  fixes  it  in  the  depth  of  winter :  .  ._  -_ 


^6  On  the  Attic  DU>ny»ia. 

Mvwi  ce  Arjimtaiva,  KaK    tifiara,  pov^opa  irarra, 

a  description  which  might  suit  the  Attic  Foscideon,  but  could 
never  have  applied  to  Anthesterion,  the  month  of  flowers*. 
Lenn?on  however,  as  we  learn  from  the  Greek  Scliolia  on  He- 
siod  (E.  K.  H.  .^02)  was  not  a  Bi£otian,  but  an  Ionian  month: 
and  the  question  is,  to  which  month  of  the  Attic  year  it 
corresponds.  Its  place  in  the  calendars  of  the  Ioniai\  cities, 
among  which  it  was  generally,  if  not  universally  received,  is 
determined  hy  unquestionable  authority.  In  an  inscription 
containing  the  names  of  magistrates  of  Cyzicus,  two  consecu- 
tive lists  are  headed  as  follows*: 

[E]  nPYTANEYSAN  MHNA  OOSEIAEWNA  K  [EKA] 

[AAI]   A2AN   MHNA  AHNAIWNA 

EnPYTANEYSAN    MHNA    AHNAIWNA    ki    EKAAAI 

[A2AN] 
MHNA  ANOESTHPTWNA. 

The  same  inference  may  he  drawn  from  a  passage  of 
Aristides".  Hence  it  appears  that  the  Ionian  Leuajon  cor- 
responded to  the  Attic  month  Gameliun :  which  by  its  poution 
in  the  Attic  calendar  suits  Hesiod's  description  still  better  than 
Poseideon.  No\v  the  Ionian  festivals  aud  the  order  of  their 
celebration,  were  undoubtedly  derived  from  the  mother  city, 
as  we  know  in  the  case  of  the  Aothesteria  from  Thucydidcs, 
who  informs  us  (ii.  15)  that  this,  the  more  ancient  festival  of 
Bacchus,  was  celebrate<l  by  the  Athenians  on  the  very  same 
day  of  the  month  named  after  it,  as  among  the  lonians  in  his 
own  time.      In  the  period  therefore  of  the  Ionian  migration 

*  HBTpocniU   'Ai'6«m(piii>c.    Syioot  f«ijn   o'Ttn  Tap'   ' A9tjfaloi^,  l«pd<  Aioviaov. 

T^«  yiifi  dvOttn  TwTi. 

Anacrconnp.  EuftUth.  p.  1013^  1.  I.  Slrlt  f*iv  S^  Uoofififitani  iai^Kt,  vt^tXai  &' 
vSmt  fiapivop^ai,  eiypivi  ii  ^fiftiSvti  iriiTayouiti.  TwMlen,  Commrntatio  Critifa 
dt  JietioiH  Canuine  i/tue  iaseribilur  Opera  el  JOifa.  p,  61,  viupecii  the  lines  ot 
Hetiod  which  duchbe  Loiupoa,  Uui  only  iiinnth  nunnl  in  the  vocoi,  to  be  intet- 
poUtcd.  KtiU  they  would  be  evidttncc  of  the  place  it  occupied  in  a  rtry  uicittDt 
calendn. 

«  Cayiun  Rec.  d'Antiri.  it.  P.  111.  Tub.  68-70. 

*  I.  p.  374-21W  J«k?b.  "  '    '- 


On  the  Attia  DionyHa: 

there  must  have  been  two  distinct  Dionysiac  festivals  at 
Athens:  that  which  gave  its  name  to  the  Ionian  month  Le- 
nocon,  and  that  which  continued  in  the  age  of  Thucydides  to 
be  celebrated,  in  Attica  as  well  as  in  Ionia,  in  the  following 
month  Anlliesterion.  The  descriptions  of  Hcsiod  and  Ana- 
creon  leave  no  room  fur  duubtiDj;,  that  the  Ionian  months 
Poseideou  and  Lenafon  answered  to  tlie  Attic  Poseideon  and 
Gamelion.  This  result  is  confirmed  by  the  comments  of  tlie 
Greek  ^ammarians  on  the  aboveqiioted  lines  of  Hesiod,  though 
their  words  involve  an  apparent  difficulty  which  requires  ex- 
planation. Proclus  makes  the  following  remark,  which  we 
tranacril>e  with  two  manifestly  necessary  corrections  of  Ruhn- 
ken  and  Wyttenbach.  IWou-rap-^oi  ov^€va  (prjal  jur/ra  Aijuai- 
atva  KoXiiTiiat  trapa  lioioiToit"  vTroTrreuei  oe  rj  tuv  Wovkotiov 
auTQv  Xe'yea',  09  etj-riv  riWov  top  alyuKeptoy  ottovTos,  Km  tov 
(Boeckh^s  emendation  for  tow)  povdopti  Ttp  WovKaritft  avvndov- 
Tos,  oiu  TO  irXfiaTovi  ev  avTtp  cia<f)0eif)€<Tdai  |3oas'«  ij  tov 
E-ptiatoVt  OS  eart  fiexa  rov  BovKaTtoi/*  xai  eiv  TavTov  ^PX°~ 
M€vo^  Ttfi  TnfirjKtun't ,  naa  6v  to  Atjvata  irap  AOrji'atot^,  IfUfe? 
^«  rouTov  ovo  aXXojy,  oAXd  Arjvawra  KoXovatv.  Hence  it 
appears  that  Pluturch,  who  had  written  on  Hesiod's  poem» 
compared  Lcnieon  with  the  Bccotian  month  Bucatius  (the 
antiquity  of  which  is  too  clearly  attested  by  its  name,  to  leave 
room  for  the  supposition  that  it  had  taken  the  place  of  Lcneran 
after  the  time  of  Hesiod),  only  however  from  conjecture, 
founded  partly  on  the  coincidence  between  the  name  Bucatius 
(from  j3ov9  Ka'ivetv)  and  the  poet^s  j^u^opa,  and  partly  on  the 
character  of  the  season,  as  we  learn  from  another  reference  to 
Plutarch's  work,  which  we  owe  to  Heaychius,  who  writes: 
Aijvattuv  fifjif'  ovc€va  Tutv  iivfvfjov  Boiwrot  oirrw  KaXovaW 
t'lKa^ei  oe  o  X\\ovTapyo»i  BoinfaVioy"  ^ai  yup  ^v^o%  kttcv* 
«vtoi  Se  Tov''^pfimov  o?  Kara  (perhaps  we  ought  to  read  /uextJ 
with  Proclus)  tov  Bov«aTioi/  ta-Tiv  xai  yap  *AOi}vaioi  tjjv 
Twv  Atjuaiuty  €opT7)v  ev  avrifi  ayowTtv,  Bucatius,  as  follows 
from  the  description,  oy  efrrtv  TJXrou  tov  aiyUtpwv  dmlirrov, 
corresponds  to  the  Attic  Gamelion,  which  probably  began 
the  old  Attic  year,  as  did  Bucatius  the  Boeotian.  But  either 
Plutarch  or  some  other  writers  (to  whom  Hesychius  alludefl 
in  his  €i/iot)  conjectured  that  Hesiod\'»  Lenieon  might  be  Her- 
mflrus,  which  followed  Bucatius,  and  coincided  with  Gamelion. 


I 


278  On  the  Attic  Dionysia. 

This  last  statement  is  incorrect  with  regard  to  the  order  of  the 
months:  for  Herniieus  in  this  respect  corresponds  to  Authea- 
terion.  But  Boeckh  has  shown  by  a  table  of  the  Attic  months 
for  three  years  beginning  with  Gamelion,  compared  with  the 
Btcotian,  in  which  the  intercalation  is  supposed  to  take  place 
ftt  the  end  of  the  year,  that  if  the  Boeotian  period  of  intercala- 
tion differed  from  the  Attic,  HermipUB  might  coincide  with 
Gamelion,  sonietimcs  once  in  three  years,  Bomeliines  once  in 
two  years'.  Hence  notwithstanding  that  Leneeon  was  the 
Attic  Gamelion,  it  might  be  correctly  compared  witli  Herma*us. 
The  words  of  Proclus,  Ka$  ov  to  Arjvata  Trap  sWtjyaioi^t  can 
only  be  referred  to  the  Attic  month  Gamelion,  and  prove 
that  not  only  in  the  earliest  times,  but  in  those  of  the  authors 
from  whom  Proclus  drew  his  statement,  the  Leniea  were  cele- 
brated in  that  month.  Hesychius  indeed  omits  the  mention 
of  Gamelion,  but  this  is  no  reason  for  suspecting  any  interpo- 
lation in  the  words  of  PrtKlus,  since  it  would  be  difficult  to 
conceive  how  the  ancients  could  compare  Hesiod^s  wintry 
Lenieon  with  Anthesterion,  even  setting  the  express  testimonies 
to  the  contrary  out  of  the  question.  Hesychius  speaks  of 
Hennieus,  considering  it,  with  Proclus,  as  coinciding  with 
Gamelion. 

Another  commentator,  whose  words  are  subjoined  to 
those  of  Proclus,  says  that  Lena?on  received  its  name  Bui  to 
xoMt  aiivov^  «**  auT(j»  e'tcTKOfxi^eaOaty  lulding  that  it  was  the  begin- 
ning of  winter :  then  another  etymology  is  suggested :  Sta  t« 
Xi/i'am)  o  e(7Ttv  epia,  xat  trpofiaTftdopai'  Kai  aiyiooopav  xaXov- 
yufK,  apparently  in  nlluston  to  (iouoopa  :  and  again,  »/  t-Trei^iJ 
^lovva^    e-TTo'iovv    eopT^v     Ttp     fitivi    tovtw,     t)v     Afi^pOQiav 

*  TtiU  supposes  the  CoPoUan  p«riod  to  tutTir  Iccn  die  (Ktactcris,  in  which  the  yeani 
of  intercAUtion  are  3,  &,  )t,  %a  tlial  interoilatinn  inok  place  >wicc  in  ihe  second.  twic«  In 

the  third  year Ti)  imdcrtlUKl  the  author's  rcaJionin^,  th«  reniln'  haw  only  to  iiuke 

out  iwo  paralJcI  liiiM  of  the  Attic  and  Bsotian  moDthi  for  three  consecutive  ycai*. 
bejiianing  with  Oatnelion — BucAtlun,  and  luppwing  an  tntcrcnlAiion  In  ih«  lint 
Attic  yeftr.  Then  the  intercalary  month,  Poscidcon  ii,  will  cormpond  lo  Itucucius 
of  the  next  Bifotian  year,  and  the  next  llaTnelion  to  HerniiruK :  but  the  intercalation 
at  the  end  of  the  iifcond  Booiian  year  will  bring  the  third  (romelion  again  opposita  to 
Bucatius.  7*hc  author  adds  "If  the  Attic  and  Birotian  intercalary  yeaT!«  did  not, 
u  U  here  ax»iim«'d,  foUow  one  another  Mt  that  the  Bcrotlan  imcrcnlary  year  wu 
atwayi  next  to  the  Attic  reckoned  (rnni  Oaiitclio)].  and  if  a  year  intervened  between 
them,  then  in  every  ihree  yexrn  in  which  an  intcrC'iIation  took  place,  Ilenaanui  coin- 
cided with  Uamdioa  twice,  and  Bucatiuv  Imt  onrc." 


On  the  Attic  Dionysia.  *279 

etcaXovv,  This  festival  of  Ambrosia  will  be  consider***! 
under  another  head  of  the  subject.  It  is  inentione<l  by 
IMoschopuluR  qIso,  who  compares  Lenieoii  with  Januan'. 
TzeCzes  too,  in  a  note  which  amply  iiluNtrates  the  sayinp:, 
•JToKvpLoQirj  voov  ou  ^i^cuTKfi,  observes  that  Leofeon  was  the 
name  given  by  the  lunians  to  the  month  answering  to  Ja- 
nuary or  to  the  Egyptian  \oidK-  The  author  of  the  Ety- 
niologicum  Magnum  (Arjvaiwi')  alw  makes  this  last  compa- 
rison, and  adds  that  I^enspon  was  d/7)^f)  tiffimv:  and  as  such 
it  corresponds  jK-rfeclly  with  Gunielion,  on  the  supposition 
that  Poscideon  was  the  last  month  of  the  old  Attic  year. 
Another  remark  of  Tzetzes  certainly  seems  to  favour  Huhn- 
ken'fi  upinioOf  for  he  observes  (according  t*»  a  reading  which 
Dr  Gaisfurd  has  not  admitted  into  the  text)  that  Lenaxin 
was  so  named  on  to.  WiOoiyia  iv  Tovrtp  eyevero.  But 
such  an  ntixiliary  must  do  more  harm  than  gooH  to  any 
cause:  for  if  we  listen  to  him,  we  must  believe  that  the 
Anthesteria  were  celebrated  in  the  depth  of  winter.  There 
are  some  other  testimonies  of  grammarians  which  corrobo- 
rate the  conclusion  to  which  llie  preceding  arguments  Iead» 
and  wl)ich  Auhnken  vainly  endeavours  to  explam  away.  The 
Rhetorical  Lexicon  (Bckker  Anecd.  p.  i35.  6)  has  tlie  article 
AtovvKTta'  eopTt]  ABijt'iyTt  Atovvaov.  rjyfTo  ce  Ta  fitv  kot 
aypovv  titjpo^  Xlo<T€idett)uoij  to  ce  Aijvaia  VnfitfKtaiyoty  ra  c4 
fv  acret  '  E\a<pt}^o\twtfos.  This  seems  sufficiently  clear.  But 
as  Hesychius,  {Aiovvata)  has  the  same  words,  only  substi- 
tuting Atjvaiwvof  for  Va/irjXtwvtK,  Uuhnken,  who  suggests 
what  is  extremely  probable,  that  Ilesychius  wa.<t  led  to  men- 
tion the  Ionian  month  in  order  to  mark  its  connexion  with  the 
festival,  supposes  that  the  author  of  the  Rhetorical  Lexicon, 
not  knowing  what  to  make  of  Lenaeon,  substituted  Ganielion 
for  it  at  a  venture.  We  have  seen  however  that  he  might 
have  done  so  advisedly,  and  with  perfect  propriety.  I'he 
same  statement  is  repeated  by  the  Scholiast  on  jKschines 
(lit.  p.  7^9  Ueisk.).  A  variation,  proKibly  accidental,  in  the 
Scholiast  on  Plato  (p.  ItiT),  who  substitutes  Maimaeterion, 
makes  for  no  party.  j\n  inscription  edited  by  Corsini  and 
Chandler  (Mann.  Oxon.  II.  xxi)  reconis  a  ceremony  whicli 
took  place  in  Gauielion  connected  with  the  worship  of  Bacchus, 
in  the  words  ictTTOMTctv  Aiotvtrou. 
Vol.  II.  No.  5.  N  n 


On  the  Attic  Dionyeia. 


Still  though  t*hc  Ionian  month  I/cnrcon  corresponded  to 
the  Attic  Gamclion,  and  derived  its  name  from  the  Attic 
l/estival,  the  Lenica,  it  Hoes  not  necessarily  follow  that  the 
r latter  was  celebrated  in  GaiuL'h'on.  For  it  is  possible  to 
'  conceive  that  after  the  Ionian  migration  the  Attic  festival 
may  have  been  united  with  either  the  rural  Dionysia  or  the 
Anthesteria,  or  that  the  lonians  may  have  separated  two  fes- 
tivals which  were  before  united,  and  have  transferred  the 
Lensea.  to  a  difTerent  month  whic-h  they  may  have  named  after 
it.  An  instance  of  a  similar  variation  actually  occurred  in  the 
case  of  the  old  Ionian  festival,  the  Apaturia,  which  at  Athens 
was  Rolemnized  in  Pyanepsion,  but  at  Cyzicus  in  Apatureon, 
though  there  was  anollier  month,  Pyanepsion  or  Cyaucpsion, 
in  the  calendar  of  Cyzicus.  This  however  is  not  a  case  which 
can  be  fairly  presumed  without  express  evidence:  aud  until 
it  can  be  proved  with  regard  to  the  Lennea,  the  testimonies 
hitherto  adduced  must  incline  us  to  con&ider  them  as  a  distinct 
festival  celebrated  in  Gamelion.     Accordingly 

II.  We  may  now  proceed  to  examine  those  which  assert 
or  deny  the  coincidence'  of  the  Lemca  with  either  of  the  two 
festivals  with  which  it  has  Iteen  supposed  to  be  identical. 

The  only  express  statement  of  any  ancient  author  in 
favour  of  RuhnkenV  opinion  is  that  of  Tzetzes  in  the  passage 
already  quoted.  There  is  indeed  a  show  of  evidence  on 
the  same  side  in  the  Scholiast  on  the  Achaniians  of  Aristo- 
phanes (<)6o),  who  fjuotcs  a  legend  from  ApoUodonis  to  ex- 
plain the  origin  of  the  Choes.  His  words  are :  ^ijo-i  ^ 
'AiroWodwpoiit  '\v0€<rrrtpia  K(tK€t<jQai  Aroii'Wf  tiJi*  oKrjv  eofmjv 
^tovvtrtp  ayofitvtjv  Kara  fxepoi  cc  HiGotyiafy  \oai-,  \vTpav. 
gat  ttvOiv  on  OptiTTty!  nmi  Tof  ^ovov  tU  A^iy^wv  <i^tKotte- 
roj  (*iv  o«  foftTij  Atavvrroit  Atfmiov)  <«  ffj  ytifotro  afbitrtv 
CtiOtrtrov^  ttir€KTOvti^  Ttjt/  fjLrfrepa.^  efitj^atnitraTo  TotovSe  t* 
X\avdi(i>V'  Xoo  oivov  tw*"  oatTvfiovtttv  cKacrtf}  TrapnffTtjtra^ 
e^  avTov  irivetv  einXevae  fitjoev  vvofuyvvvTas  qXXij'Ao*?,  aw 
lArjTe  avo  row  avTov  KpaTtjpo^  wioi  OperrTrji,  f*fJT€  eKelvov 
a^^otTO  KaS'  avTov  inVttH'  juoroc,  xa'i  aV  e^eivov  ABtjvniot^ 
ioprtj  evofiiaOrj  o'l  Xoci.  We  have  here  evidently  the  very 
words  of  Apotlodorus,  except  that  as  to  those  included  in 
the  parenthesis  there  may  l>o  a  dmibl  whether  they  do  not 
rather  belong  to  the  scholiast.     But  admitting  that  they  are 


On  the  Attic  Dwnysia. 

as  autbciitic  as  the  ret^t,   we  cautiot  coQaidA  them  as  evidence 

that   thf   Antheslcria    wa:i    the   same   festival   as   the    Leniea. 

AJl  that  Apollodurus  asserts  is,  that  the  former  was  a  festival 

uf    C^tovvtTos   Aifvato^,       Phanodemus   in   Atlicnoeus   x.    p.  437- 

relates  the  same  legend,   only  substituting  the  Dome  of  Dc- 

niophoon  for  that  of  Pundion,  without  making  any   mention 

of  the  Lensea  or  tlie   Leiuean  god :    except   that  the  citixens 

were    directed,     when    they   }ia<l  taken  off*  the  chaplets   which 

they    wore   during   tlie    feast,    which   were  polluted    by    the 

presence  of  Orestes,    instead  of  hanging  them  on  the  temples, 

to  twine  them  round  the  cups  they  had  drained,  Kot  t*i   lepti^ 

airo<p€p6ty  rouv  <fTe(pdyotfi  irpoc  to  ev  Ai/xvcu;  Tetievot,      On 

the  other  hand  Ijoth  the  Xoes  and  the  Xurpoc  arc  expressly 

distinguished    from    the    Leneea:     the    former    by    Alcipliron 

II.  3.  p.  SSO),    who  makes    Menauder   write,    that    he   would 

not  lake  all  the   treasures  of  a  palace  in  exchange  r£v  kut 

€TO^-  \owv  KUt   Twp  ev  Tois   BeaTpoK    Atji'aitttyj   Knt   t/}v   \0i' 

^W    OMoXoyias,    xai    twi'    tov    AvKetou    yvfivaaitav,     nai    t^ 

tepas  AKaoijfiiaSf   and  by  Suidas :    I'a  sk   Ttov  unai^^v   trKia/t- 

fjt,aTa'     e'Tfi    Tutv  airapaKaXuTrTios  (TKWTTTutrrtov.       \8ttviiat  yttp 

CM  Tjf  \ow»  eopTtj   o't  Kto/ia^ovTev  eiri  Tmv  aftaqwv  tuvv  avtuh- 

TWfTOi    €<TKtairr6v    t«    *ca*    iXot^povv.     to   ^'   avTo  Kat  tois 

Anvaiots   varepov  twuiovv.       The    Xvrpoi    again    are   uo   less 

clearly    distinguislied     from     tlie     L.ena:a    by     j£lian     Uiat. 

An.  IV.  53,    KextipvKTat  yap  Cuovvfria  Ktu  Ar}vaia  koI  Xvt- 

poi  Kat   V€<(>upt(TMoii  and  Hippolochus  in  Athemeus  iv.  p.  I'JQ 

who  writes  to  his  friend  :    <n)  Se  fiovov  e¥  'AO^vat^  fxevaiv  euoat- 

/^oftCeiy    Tuv    0€o<ppaaTov    Oeaet^    ukovwv,    Qufxa  KOt  ei/^cu^a 

Aral  TOWS  fcaXoL/r  eaOmit  arpeiTTou^t  Atjvata  Kat   \vTpov^  ^«ttu 

pwv''.      Iluhnken,    who   notices    these   passages,   finds   himself 

compelled  by  them  to  suppose,  either  that  tlie  name  Leniea, 

beside  being  a  general  one  for  the  whole  festival  Anthcsteria, 

'  The  suthor  han  an  ingfiolotis  remark  m  this  pana^c  Hippolorhui,  who  ha« 
been  describing;  ■  nuioptuouA  bsnquct  ai  which  he  wu  present  in  31iu^lonia,  nlties  his 
friend  cm  the  poor  cnieruunmcuU  he  ha*  bcon  enjoying;  in  the  niaan  time  at  Ath^is; 
and  M  he  names,  not  ihe  iiicrre  luugnificfnl  s|iectMlc»  of  ihc  great  I>i<myftia  or  the 
Psnalhenim,  but  the  Lenam  and  the  Chftri,  we  mmy  conclitde  that  tbcne  were  the 
f«alivals  which  Lynccus  would  hare  lost  if  be  had  leA  Alhcna  to  enjoy  the  Jionpi- 
tality  of  Caranus.  Uui  it'  the  litnm*  fell  in  Poscidcon,  tJic  intcrral  including  die 
niraJ  Dionyaia  and  the  AntheHtt-ria  wouM  he  lon(;n-  than  wa*  required  (or  aurh  a 
journey :  whereaa  If  Ihe  Letirit  oceiiTTt<t  in  (lainclion,  the  lime  allowed  for  llit 
jomntf  would  have  been  no  more  itian  tuilideat. 


282  On  the  Attic  Ditfiiysiit, 

was  also  peculiarly  applied  to  the  first  day,  11160*7^,  or  else 
that  there  was  a  fourth  day  distinguished  by  this  name.  The 
first  of  these  conjectures  is  merely  uttgrounded,  unless  such 
an  authority  as  l)»at  of  Tzetzes  be  lhoup;ht  to  support  it ; 
but  the  second  labours  under  the  additional  difficulty,  that 
this  fourth  day  is  omitted  in  every  detailed  description  of 
the  festival,  where  there  was  apparently  just  an  much  reason 
for  mentioning  it  as  any  of  the  other  three. 

Ruhnken^s  opponents  are  able  to  produce  a  greater 
ouoiber  of  witnesses  to  the  identity  of  the  Lena-a  and  the 
rural  Dionysia.  Stephanus  Dyzantinus  has  an  obscure  and 
Bcenitngly  mutilated  article,  in  which  he  appears  to  confirm 
this    o]}inion  :     Arjvaiw    aytov   ^twiicoif    ev    aypois    a.iro   tou 

XrjVOtj'        ATTuWootVpO^     CV    Tp'tTtp     YjOpMltttri'.      KUt     AlJl/dUlK,     Kol 

Aijvatev^.  eaTi  ci  koI  c^/iof.  The  object  of  the  Lexicographer 
was  a  geographical  one,  and  this  mention  of  the  festival  must 
have  been  merely  incidental,  though  in  the  extract  we  now 
read  it  is  put  foremost.  We  cannot  even  gather  the  opinion 
of  ApoUodorus  with  safety  from  such  a  statement.  But  if 
it  were  worthy  of  the  utmost  credit  that  his  name  cnuld  give 
to  it,  we  should  still  learn  nothing  more  from  it,  than  that 
there  was  a  festival  or  a  contest  called  A^vatop  or  Ar/raiVov, 
celebrated  iy  dypoh.  It  would  still  remain  to  be  proved 
that  this  was  the  same  with  that  known  by  the  name  of 
TCI  er  ay poii  ^lovwria.  For  as  the  Anthesteria,  though 
celebrated  in  the  city,  were  distinct  from  the  Uionysia  ev 
aaret)  so  might  the  rural  Dionysia  be  from  the  Lentca, 
though  the  latter  were  celebrated  ey  aypoU.  But  it  seems 
most  probable  that  the  statement  in  Ste]>hanu8  is  only  a 
premature  inference  from  the  etymology  which  he  subjoins, 
which  would  not  prove  anything  as  to  the  ultimate  locality 
of  the  festival.  There  are  however  two  passages  in  the 
Scholiast  on  Aristophanes  which  assert  the  same  thing  more 
distinctly.  In  the  first  (Acharn.  201)  we  read,  to  kot' 
aypovs^  ra  hrtvaia  \tyotxeva-  evOfv  to  Ativata  k<*1  o  exiX»/- 
i/atov  ay*t>v  tcXcitmc  Tip  i^iovvutp,  Atfifaiov  y»p  fd-nK  cm 
aypoi^  \epov  tov  Aioi^vaoi/,  cia  to  TrXeirrovi  evravOa  y^o- 
veyttty  ij  eta  to  irpwTov  iv  Toury  rio  roirift  X^vov  reG^yat. 
In  the  second,  503  :  o  riav  Atovv<Tiu)v  ayav  ereXetro  olv  rov 
erovij   TO  fi€v  TTpaJror  eapo^   iv  aflrrei,  oT€  01  f^opot  ABnvijaiv 


On  the  Attic  Bionyvia.  283 

efpeporro,  to  oevrepov  ev  aypoti)  o  eirJ  Artvaitfi  Xeyo/aevovt 
ore  ^evot  ov  iraptjaav  AdtivtjtTt'  ^ei/nwv  yap  Xotiroir  t/v. 
Both  these  scholia  aifbrd  very  strong  ground  for  suspecting 
that  their  authors  knew  very  little  more  on  the  subject 
than  they  might  have  collected  from  Aristophanes  himself. 
In  the  first  the  words  to  A.  \.  were  evidently  a  distinct  ex- 
planation* and  perhaps  suggested  the  following  remark,  which 
sounds  very  much  like  the  vogue  guess  of  a  man  who  had 
heard  something  about  a  temple  of  Ilacchus,  which  he  sup- 
posed to  be  somewhere  out  of  the  city,  but  which  he  was 
unable  to  describe  more  accurately  than  by  saying  that  it 
was  in  the  country.  The  second  passage  too  gives  us  no 
information  which  we  might  not  have  drawn  from  the  play, 
and  it  is  expressed  so  as  to  leave  it  at  least  very  doubtful 
whether  the  writer  knew  of  the  existence  of  more  than  two 
Dionysiu.  He  cau  only  be  defended  on  the  supposition,  that 
he  meant  to  speak  of  no  festivals  but  such  as  were  celebrated 
with  dramatic  exhibitions.  But  he  gives  no  proofs  of  learning 
such  as  might  entitle  him  to  so  favourable  a  construction. 
Such  testimonies  can  scarcely  be  thought  to  outweigh  those 
above  quoted  from  Hesychius,  the  Rhetorical  Lexicon,  and 
the  Scholiasts  on  .lEschincs  and  Plato,  who  appear  to  have 
drawn  their  statements  from  the  same  aullior,  but  from  one 
who  was  well  informed,  and  who  wrote  not  incidentally,  but 
professedly  on  the  subject. 

HI.  If  the  time  at  which  the  Lenoea  were  celebrated 
is  less  distinctly  marked  by  the  testimonies  of  the  ancients 
than  could  liave  been  desired,  the  place  of  the  festival  at 
least  is  clearly  and,  almost  without  exception,  uniformly 
described.  Heaychius  (according  to  a  slight  and  unquestiun- 
able  correction  of  Ruhnken)  writes :  'Ett*  Aijvalw  a^mi/"  ea-rtit 
<r  Tfo  atTTfi  A  rivatov  -trfpi^uXoy  €^ov  fxiyaVf  xal  iv  avTty 
Arjvatov  Aiovvtrov  lejoov,  ev  tfi  airtTtXavyro  o\  aytuves  'AQtjvamv, 
wptv  TO  BtoTpoy  oiKocotirtB^vat.  So  the  author  of  the  Ety- 
mologicum  Magnum:  'Ewl  At]vai{f}'  Trepi^oXos  rty  fieyat 
Adtjiftjfftv,  Cf  (p  iepov  Awvvffov  Aijfaiovj  koi  toi/?  a'ywi^i- 
ifyov  TOW  a-KijvtKovv-  And  Photius  :  A^vatov  Trepi^oXoi  ficya^ 
ASi}v>jatVi  ev  If}  TOW  aymvav  *iyov  vpo  toD  to  deaTpov  oiVo- 
aufirjOrjvnt,  oi/ofia(oi/Te(  eirl  At}vaitf>'  ecm  00  vv  ovtm  Kai 
Upov   ^tovvaov.       From    these    passages    we   learn,     that    the 


Mi  On  the  Jilic  Dionynia. 

Lcnicon  was  within  the  city,  and  that  the  entertainments  ] 
originally  exhibited  there  were  afterwards  transferred  to  the 
theatre,  which  was  of  course  built  at  no  great  distance  from 
the  hallowed  ground.  Accordingly  Hesychius  {iKpta)  calls 
it  TO  €v  L^iovvaov  QiaTpov  (ftce  Huhnken.  AucL  Em.)  and 
Fau»auias  (i.  SO)  describes  the  Lena?on,  without  mentioning 
its  name,  in  exact  accordance  with  the  pass^igcs  above  quoted: 
Tow  ^iovvaov  «Je  etm  vpoi  t^  OtaTptp  to  ap-^atoTUTov  tepov. 
ovo  ofl  &/riv  eyrot  tov  trepilioXov  vaoi  xal  Atoi'fcroi, 
EKevOepetnf  Kai  ov  AXxafitvits  eTro'iTjaef  eXe<^fii/Tos  Kai  ^wrov. 
The  same  precincts  arc  described  by  Ilcsychius  in  anotlier 
passage  by  a  different  name:  Atfivtryevei'  AtfAvai  iy  A^ijwuf 
Toirov  apftjuffov  i^wvucrtp  ottov  xa  Atjrcua  rtyero*  It  waa 
therefore  the  Lena^au  liacchus  to  whom  the  place  called 
Limnse  was  consecrated,  and  the  aaiue  god  wae  honoured 
iiy  the  festival  of  the  Antheateria.  Uuhnken  considers  all 
this  as  evidence  for  his  opinion.  It  might  liowever  be  just 
as  well  used  to  prove  that  the  great  Dionysia  were  the 
same  festival  an  the  Authesteria :  for  they  are  no  less  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  same  sacretl  iitclosure :  and  as  after 
tlio  erection  of  the  theatre  the  spectacles  before  exhibited  at 
the  Leneea  on  the  wooden  scaffolding  in  the  Leneeon  were 
transfcrrc<l  to  the  new  building,  so  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  entertainments  of  the  great  Dionysia  were  anciently 
perfonned  on  the  boards  of  the  Lenason.  Nothing  therefore 
can  be  inferred  as  to  tlie  identity  of  the  festivals  from  the 
identity  of  the  place,  and  as  little  from  that  of  the  god, 
since  from  a  variety  of  caust-s,  which  any  one  conversant 
with  the  religious  worship  of  the  Greeks  may  easily  imagine, 
the  same  god  might  become  the  object  of  two  distinct  fes- 
tivals. 

On  the  other  hand  this  evidence  as  to  the  locality  of  the 
Lena^an  festival,  seems  conclusive  against  those  who  maintain 
its  identity  witli  the  rural  Diuny&ia:  and  several  of  tiicm  have 
in  fact  seen  no  other  way  of  eluding  the  force  of  the  inference, 
than  by  resorting  to  very  violent  proceedings  witli  the  text  of 
some  of  the  obnoxious  passages.  Nor  is  the  derivation  of  the 
name  Lenx^a,  from  the  winepress,  inconsistent  with  the  fact,  that 
the  festival  was  ceU-hratc<l  within  the  city.  The  spot  on  which 
the  wiue£ire&f>  the  erection  of  which  it  was  supposed  to  conuiie- 


On  the  Attic  Dionysia.  285 

morale  stood,  tlHui>7li  oni'e  part  of  a  rural  district,  miglit  iii  the 
course  of  time  have  been  inclosed  >viihin  tlie  city  walls,  and 
then  the  festival  soleniDized  there  could  no  longer  be  colled  a 
rural  one.  Before  however  this  inclosure  took  place,  this  dis- 
trict, the  deme  Lciiax)n  nr  I.cnffus  mentioned  in  the  above> 
quoted  article  of  Steph.  Byzant.,  was  undmdjtcdly  a  rural  one, 
and  the  spectacles  exiiihited  there  would  lie  properly  dcRcribed 
as  aytvv  AtovufTov  tV  dypoi'i.  Whether  Apollodonis,  in  the 
passage  to  which  Stephanus  referred,  had  really  made  a  learned 
remaik  to  this  effect,  and  whctlier  the  passage  of  the  Sclioliast 
of  Aristophanes  may  bavc  been  grounded  on  a  perversion  of 
(his  piece  of  antiquarian  erudition,  is  a  question  which  must  be 
left  to  conjecture.  One  thing  however  is  clear,  that  Lena?a 
was  the  name  of  a  particular  festival,  referred  by  local  tra- 
dition to  a  particular  spot,  which  already  in  very  early  times 
formed  part  of  the  city. 

To  get  rid  of  this  diifficulty,  Hermann  has  adopted  a  pecu- 
liar hypotbesis  on  the  subject  of  the  rural  Dionysia.  He  sup- 
poses that  though  tliey  were  celebrated  all  over  Attica,  vet 
the  dramatic  exhibitionK  which  accompanied  them  were  con- 
fined to  one  place:  that  tbla  was  the  district  Lenteon,  wtuch 
lay  originally,  though  near  to  tlie  city,  without  the  walls: 
hence  the  rural  Diunysia,  from  being  celebrated  there  by  such 
spectacles,  were  called  Lencca.  He  further  conjectures  that 
the  theatre  built  for  the  same  exhibitions  in  the  room  of  the 
wooden  stage  was  tliat  of  Pirteus  or  Munychia,  which  he  takes 
to  be  one  and  the  same,  and  lie  Iwlds  the  Atofvffia  iv  rfeijoaiei 
to  be  no  other  than  the  rural  Dtunysia  celebrated  at  Pirfeus, 
The  festival,  even  after  this  transfer  to  a  new  scene,  might 
still,  he  thinks,  have  retained  the  name  it  derived  from  its 
ancient  locality:  nr  the  rural  Dionysia  may,  as  Eanngiesser 
imagines,  have  lasted  three  days,  distinguished  by  different 
names,  of  whicli  the  two  flrst  may  have  been  Otoiv'ta  and 
AffKutKia,  tlic  third  A}}vata. 

The  objections  which  Boeckh  oppose*  to  this  conjecture 
apply  partly  to  the  general  view  it  suggests  of  the  mode  of 
celebrating  the  rural  Dionysia,  and  partly  to  the  peculiar 
liypotheisis  regarding  the  theatre  of  Ftrseus.  Dramatic  enter- 
tainments arc  nieutiuned  as  exhibited  in  olhtr  rural  districts 
of  Attica.     Those  of  Collytus  are  celebrated  by  the  orators: 


I 

1 


286  On  the  Attic  Dionysia. 

.^fichines  speaks  of  the  comedies  performed  there  during  the 
rural  Dionysia  (c.  Timarch.  p.  158  trpwyjv  ev  Toii  kut  aypou^ 
^lovvffiotv  Ktlf^n>owv  ovTOjv  ef  KoXXur^>)  and  Demosthenes  of 
the  tragedies  in  which  .^schines  himself  played  a  doleful  part 
on  the  same  stage  (De  cor.  p.  288).  Tragic  performances  at 
Salamisalso  are  alluded  to  in  a  recently  discovered  inscription*: 
and  a  passage  in  Isteiis  (De  Cironis  Hered.  p.  aofi)  seems  to 
justify  the  inference,  that  there  were  similar  exhibitions  at 
PhlyoB.  For  among  other  instances  of  affection  shown  by 
Ciron  to  his  grarflchildren,  the  speaker  mentions:  c«  Aio- 
ri'Uia  t(«  ayftoi-  (which  as  we  are  afterwards  informed  was 
<l*\viitTi)  rfytv  QCi  »;m"Si  Koi  t^e-r  ixe'tvov  iOftvpov/if*'  Ka0tiuevoi 
trap  fxvTof,  Icaria  too,  the  birthplace  of  Thespis,  and  the 
cradle  of  the  Attic  drama,  can  scarcely  have  been  destitute  of 
«uch  amusements.  But  all  these,  as  is  proved  with  regard  to 
Piricus  and  Salamis  by  existing  monuments,  were  spectaclcB 
furnished  at  the  expense,  not  of  the  state,  but  of  the  several 
districts  in  which  they  were  exhibited.  The  theatre  at  Pira;u« 
belonged  exclusively  to  that  community-  Now  a  festival  cele- 
brated in  the  city  cuuld  never  have  been  transferred  to  a  dis- 
trict without  it ;  and  even  if  this  were  supposed  possible,  and 
that  the  Lenaea  when  removed  from  Athens  to  Piraeus  still 
retained  the  name  derived  from  tiie  Lenieon,  at  least  they  could 
not  have  been  described  as  aywv  ewi  AijpatM.  The  conjecture 
that  the  rural  Dionysia  lasted  three  days,  of  which  the  last 
went  by  the  name  of  Affvaia^  can  only  be  admitted  when  it 
becomes  necessary.  But  the  most  decisive  argument  against 
this  hypothesis  is  supplied  by  a  law  cited  in  the  oration  c.  Mid. 
p.  517*  which  begins:  \i,vi}yof}ot  etfr^v,  orav  ij  wofXTrrj  rj  Ty 
Aiouv<ri^  eV  Iletjpaiei  ffoi  ol  Ku>/j^ti>^oi  Kat  oi  Tpaytjt^oh  Kat  7  errl 
Ativaitf)  vofiirri  koI  01  Tpaynicot  Kat  01  KW/itftooi,  Kai  tois  ev 
aoTTtit  ^lovvffioi^  ^  TTOfx-TTij  Kat  ol  watce^  Kai  6  Kt^fxw  Kat  ol 
KM/AtfiOot  Kai  ot  Tpayttfdolj  Kai  OapyrjX'iMv  xrf  -jrofivti  Kai  tw 
«7(riw.  From  this  passage  it  npjiears  that  the  state  look  a 
part  in  tlie  Dionysia  of  Piraeus  by  a  solemn  procession,  and 
celebrated  those  of  whicii   Lenieon  was  the  scene  by  another. 

*  A   t^alfimlnian  decree,   partly  publUhcd   in   Rochler  Docrpc  B«itr«fge,    1814. 
■•  pi  43)  liu  the  words ;  mai  lifttwfiv  tow  sW^aiw  Twroit  &toPwlair  TW  iv  Za^a* 


On  the  Attic  Dionysta. 


287 


Which  ]>roves  not  only  that  the  festivitiea  wore  distinct  from 
one  another,  but  also  that  if  those  of  Pirirus  bolongetl  to  the 
rural  Dionysia,  those  of  Lenieon  were  connected  with  a  dif- 
ferent festival:  since  it  would  be  incredible  that  two  such 
spectacles  as  those  described  in  the  law  should  have  been 
exhibited   at  the  public  charge  on  the  same  occasion. 

The  order  in  which  the  festivals  are  mentiontd  in  the  law 
of  Evagorus  raises  another  (juestion.  This  order  was  probably 
not  accidental  ur  arbitrary:  on  what  principle  then  did  it  pro- 
ceed ?  Manifestly  upon  the  order  in  which  the  festivals  them- 
selves took  place,  and  this  not  in  the  natural  but  the  civil  year : 
for  otherwise  the  two  lastmentioned  festivals  would  liave  been 
named  first.  This  is  conclusive  against  Spanheira''B  supposition 
(ad  Vesp.  Ran.  p.  2*^8  Kust.)  that  the  l>ionysia  of  Pira-us  were 
the  Anthesteria.  On  the  other  hand  (he  words  of  the  law 
determine  nothing  as  to  the  time  of  the  Lena?a.  If  it  was 
Gamclion,  the  Antbestcria,  though  a  more  solemn  festival,  is 
entirely  omitted.  So  however  at  all  events  are  the  Pana- 
theniea :  and  if  we  suppose  that,  at  the  time  when  the  law  was 
made,  there  were  no  dramatic  exhibitions  at  the  Antbestcria, 
both  festivals  may  have  been  past  over  for  the  same  reason. 
The  same  conclusion  is  suggested  by  an  inscription  first  pub- 
lished by  Uocckh  in  his  Public  Economy  of  Athens  (Ap^wndix 
VIII.),  containing  an  account  of  sums  which  accrued  to  the  state 
from  the  sale  of  the  hides  of  victims  slaughtered  on  great  public 
occasions  (^epjuaTucor).  Among  the  festivals  mentioneil  in  this 
document,  the  date  of  which  is  Ol.  Ill  J,  the  second  is  that  of 
^tovwjta  ra  eTrl  Ai}vatWt  which  i.s  immediately  followed  by  the 
words  (according  to  Uocckh's  reading) :  Trapn  /nvtTTtjpivov  kqi 
TeXcTwv  CK  Tjj?  Ova'iai  tij  ^rjftrjTfH  wapa  UpoTrotwu :  e^  A<TK\rf- 
irieitt)*'  irapa  tcpowottttv  J  sk  i^tovvffiwv  toik  ev  utTTei  Tapa 
^otovwv.  The  combination  of  the  Leucean  festival  with  the 
mysteries  (the  lesser^  which  were  celebrated  in  Anthesterion) 
shews  that  they  could  not  have  been  separateil  from  each  other 
by  a  very  wide  interval,  as  would  have  been  the  case  if  the 
former  was  a  part  of  the  rural  Dionysia.  But  neither  is  it 
necessary  to  snpjKisf  that  they  fell  in  the  j^amc  month.  If  the 
mysteries  were  celebrated  early  in  Anthesterion,  and  the  I^enu*a 
in  Gamelion,  they  will  have  been  near  enough  to  each  other  to 
be  included  in  the  same  article.  In  thiit  case  the  Anthesteria 
Vol..  n.  No.  .-}.  O  o 


t_ 


On  the  Attic  Dionysia. 

arc  omitted  here  again :  winch  li«u-ever  would  only  indicate 
that  this  festival  was  not  sulcninizcd  with  a  public  banquet 
at  the  expenise  of  the  state,  and  therefore  did  not  contribute  to 
the  SepfxaTiKov.  The  name  of  the  festival  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  Lena?a  is  lost,  all  but  the  concluding  letters  AYEI- 
QNTiiN,  out  of  which  Boeckh,  by  a  very  easy  correction  and 
BUpplement,  ex^tracts  ck  Atovvaituv  twv  Kar  dypow^  which 
brings  the  order  of  the  festivals  in  this  inscription  into  har- 
mony witli  that  given  by  the  grammarians  and  in  the  law  of 
Evagorus.  The  victims  of  which  an  account  is  here  rendered 
under  the  head  of  the  rural  Dionyaia,  were  probably  those  sacri- 
ficed on  the  occasion  of  the  procession  mentioned  in  the  law  as 
made  rm  ^tovvatf)  vy  lieipaie7- 

IV.  We  may  now  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments 
which  Ruhnken  draws  from  Aristophanes,  and  on  which  he 
relies  as  the  firmest  support  of  hit  proiM>sitioii.  Nos  rent 
cr  ttno  Arist<yphane  ita  deniotutremiis,  ut  nuHus  dubitationi 
hcus  reiinquaiur.  His  proof  is  grounded  principally  on 
the  chronological  data  in  the  Acharnians.  In  v.  y6o  (j>a5 
Bckk.)  Lamachus  wants  to  buy  some  dainties,  to  celebrate 
the  Choes :  eis  towp  \oai  avr^  fieraoovvat  twv  ki-^^X^v  ■  aud 
the  same  season  is  afterwards  Etllud(.>d  to  in  the  question 
(1171  Rek.),  Toes  Xovffi  ytifj  Tif  (rv/i/3oXas  €irparreTo;  as 
the  inroad  of  the  enemy  which  occasioned  the  conflict,  had 
been  before  announced  at  the  same  time  (lOlO)  vvo  tovs 
Xoris  yap  nal  \vTpov^  aurotcri  Tt^''\[yy€t\€  Xi/CTa?  etif^aXetv 
Uoiivrtov^.  The  play  then  was  acted  during  the  festival 
which  included  the  XoV?.  But  from  other  passages  (487 
and  1119):  avTot  yap  eafievj  ouirl  Ativalt'i  t  aywv,  and  09  y 
efie  xo;'  TXtjfiova  At'ivaia  j^optfywv  aireVXc**?'  a^etTrvoVj  it  is 
equally  clear  that  it  was  exhibited  at  the  Lcnica,  as  the  an- 
cient didascalia  expressly  asserts.  It  follows  that  this  is  the 
same  festival  with  the  Cliocs.  Those  who  have  confounded 
it  with  the  rural  Dionysia,  which  arc  mentioned  in  the  earlier 
part  of  the  play,  have  overlooked  that  Dicu^opolis  is  represented 
as  returning  to  Athens,  and  enjoying  the  festivities  of  the 
Lena»a,  after  having  celebratcil  the  rural  Dionysia  in  the 
country.  ^lorcover  the  Frogs  were  also  exhibited  at  the 
Lena?a,  and  yet  in  that  play  (Sl.'>)  the  chorus  intimates  that 
it  was   performed  at  the  Chytri :    for  they    sing :    tpBe^ojfieff 


On  the  Attic  IMonysm 

ifpoitri    \vrpoieTt  \ttfpei    xnr    ejuov  Teftwvo^  Aawv  o^Aop. 

This  last  nrgiiment  rests  on  a  misunderstanding  which 
spoils  the  humour  of  the  passage.  The  eroaking  choir  de- 
scrihes  the  time  when  they  raised  their  \*oic«s  in  their  beloved 
hauntst  iv  iMttvatatty  by  the  season  wlieii  the  human  revellers 
flocked  to  the  same  scene  to  keep  the  holiday  of  tlie  Chytri. 
For  this,  Antheslerion,  was  the  time  when  marsh  and  jmm)] 
resoundetl  with  such  strains.  But  they  were  ready  to  enter- 
tain Bacchus  with  their  music  a  month  earlier  than  usual,  if 
the  Lenxa  be  supposed  to  fall  in  Ganielion.  The  passage 
of  the  Achamians  in  which  the  chorus  complains  of  having 
been  dismissed  by  u  choragus  supperless,  evidently  refers  to 
a  former  year.  We  have  therefore  only 'to  consider  the  other 
allusions  in  ttiat  playt  which  relate  to  a  time  really  or  iinagl- 
narily  present. 

It  ought  not  to  be  doubted  that  the  Acharnians  was  really 
exhibited  at  the  Leneca,  as  is  recorded  in  the  dicla.scalia,  which 
ha*  alt  the  marks  that  can  be  desired  of  an  ancient,  trustworthy 
document.  Kanngiesser  and  Henuann  indeed  have  questioned 
its  genuineness,  the  latter  suspecting  that  it  was  fabricated 
according  to  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  line,  avroi 
yap  €<7nevt  ovTTi  Arjvaiff}  t  dytov.  But  the  author  at  least 
caimot  have  drawn  all  the  information  he  communicates  from 
the  play.  He  writes :  eoUd^dtj  eVt  ^vOiffi^vovs  iifj-^oitTo^  ev 
Af)vatoi.<s  cid  KaK^ittTTpdrov  Kal  Trptaro^  ijp'  oevrepo^  KpuTivos 
S.etaa^o/j.€t'OK '  ov  fftu^CTai'  Tpiros  EfTroXi^  Sovfiiji'tait.  It 
seems  capricious  to  charge  a  person  who  relates  so  many  facts 
which  he  could  only  have  learnt  from  express  authority,  with 
inserting  among  them  a  conjecture  of  his  own,  on  a  |K)int  which 
he  was  likely  to  find  similarly  ascertained  in  the  same  works". 
But  the  mode  in  which   Hermann  attempts  to  get  rid  of  the 


>  The  reader  will  probkbly  be  glad  to  hear  Boeckh's  gaicnl  apinion  on  this  lab- 
jecu  He  tMjt !  *'  I  venture  to  assert,  that  next  to  the  coins  and  fauimptinnR  and  thtt 
workR  of  the  Ant  historlnns,  the  MairKaXiai  are  the  purest  and  moat  truatwortJiy 
•ourcci  of  infomiJitirai,  contemporary  ort);inal  documcatx  on  the  pieces  actually 
exhibited,  collected  hjr  writers,  who  had  accru  to  a  world  of  nionumems  that  has 
\oag  perished,  by  AHniolIc,  Dlcaurchtu,  ('allimachu*.  AriHtophancs  of  Byuntlum^ 
Apollodonu,  EraronthfTiev  and  other*,  who  cotnpiled  them,  not  out  of  itictr  ovrn 
headii,  nor  by  gtiewwork,  but  ftom  accounts  Into  which  no  eiror  could  find  ita  way. 


I 


990  On  the  Attic  Dionyain. 

tpstiniony  of  Aristophanes  himself,  Appears  eiill  more  violent. 
He  supposes  the  play  to  have  been  acted  at  the  great  Uionysia, 
and  that  the  passage  in  which  Dicteopolia  reminds  the  specta- 
tors that  no  strangers  are  present  this  time,  is  mere  irony: 
oJ/irai  ^ci'ot  irap^KJiv^  not  because  they  were  still  to  come,  but 
because  there  was  now  no  tribute  for  them  to  bring :  ovre  ydp 
<popoi  t)Kov<TWf  OUT  CK  Twv  TToXetoc  01  ^vfj^fAftyot.  But  even 
if  history  sanctioned  the  supposition,  that  such  was  the  state 
of  oiFairs  at  the  time  when  the  play  was  acted  (01.  8S.  3), 
which  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  prove,  it  would  be  incredible 
that  the  poet  should  have  made  such  a  bitter  jest  on  the  ca- 
lamity of  the  state. 

Tf  then  we  consider  with  lluhnken  the  incidents  of  the 
drama,  we  find  that  it  opens  at  Athens  with  the  assembly  at 
which  Dicaeopolis  conceives  the  plan  of  negociiiting  a  separate 
truce  vith  Lacedoimon,  and  sends  off  Am]>hitheus  for  that 
purpose.  The  assembly  is  scarcely  dtaniissL'd  before  the  envoy 
returns  with  the  object  of  his  mission,  after  a  narrow  eseapc 
from  the  fury  of  llie  Acburulana,  Dicteopolis,  after  selecting 
the  largest  term,  declares  his  iuttiuiun  of  immediately  using 
his  privilege*  by  going  in  and  celebrating  the  rural  Dionysia: 
cyitf  ce  troKenov  koI  KaKuiv  aTraXXa'yfl?  afw  to  kut  aypoui 
etatijov  Atovuata.  fiaiiov  must  refer  to  his  own  house,  where 
he  means  to  make  preparation  for  the  festival.  It  must  be 
supposed  to  be  visible  to  the  spectators :  for  there  is  no  reason 
to  imagine  a  change  of  scene :  and  the  audience  who  were  not 
allocked  at  seeing  Amphithcus  return  from  Laccda>mon  in  the 
course  of  a  few  minutes  after  he  had  set  out  from  Athenfi, 
would  not  be  more  startled  by  tlie  spectacle  of  the  rural  Diony- 
sia celebrated  un  the  same  ground  which  had  just  been  occupied 
by  the  popular  asseutbly.  At  all  events  the  procession  which 
presents  itaelf  in  the  next  scene  to  the  enraged  chorus,  is 
supposed  to  take  place  in  the  deme  of  DicimpoHs;  for  he 
addresses  the  associate  of  Hacchus  in  the  words:  eKTip  tr  ertt 
vpofrettrovy  ef  top  cijiiov  e\Bu>v  afTfievo^,  airot'cd^  Trotrftxafievo^ 
tfiavTiOy  irpay fiarcuv  re  kuI  fio'^wi'  Kat  An^ia^iiii'  aTraXXa-ytiV, 
I'Vom  which  we  may  infer,  that  the  festival  is  supposed  to  be 

except  an  oreraight  of  the  collecton  or  n  itlip  of  Utc  pen :  and  I  ngret  that  Spalding 
(De  Dion.  p.  7>^)  aliould  have  countenanced  the  conlcmpl  lltat  hiu  been  expressed  for 
Uicni." 


On  the  Attic  Dionysift. 


S91 


celebrated  not  only  at  the  usual  place,  in  the  country,  in  this 
instance  at  Chollida',  where  Dica-opolis  lived  (381.  ^iKatoTroXtv 
KoXei  ae  XoXXi3^?),  but  also  at  the  proper  time:  for  otherwise 
Dicceopolis  would  not  have  been  so  long  deprived  of  the  plea- 
sure by  the  war,  since  the  cncray  did  not  remain  the  whole 
year  through  in  Attica'".  The  chorus,  after  witnessing  the 
comnicucenient  of  the  procession,  bejjin  their  attack  on  Dicupo- 
polis,  who  only  obtains  a  hearing;  by  threatening  the  existence 
of  the  little  objects  of  tlieir  tenderest  sympathies.  When  by 
this  stratagem  he  has  gained  leave  to  make  a  formal  defense, 
distrusting  his  powers  of  oratory,  he  further  desires  a  garb 
fitted  to  move  compassion,  and  being  permitted  to  procure  one, 
instantly  makes  an  application  to  Euripides.  The  following 
scene,  before  the  door  of  tlie  tragic  poet,  brings  us  once  more 
luick  to  Athens,  but,  as  before,  witlwut  any  visible  change  to 
assist  the  spectator's  imagination.  When  Dica^opolis  has  stript 
Kuripides  of  all  his  tragic  furniture,  he  begins  liis  oration, 
which  is  addressed  to  the  spectators  (yiif  fioi  tpOovtlfftiT  ,  av^pes 
o'l  Oewfievoi)  and  is  spoken  throughout  in  the  mind  and  person 
of  the  poet  himself,  so  that  the  line,  avTol  yap  eafiei',  ovrrt 
Atj¥aitfj  T*  dytev,  which  occurs  in  the  procemium,  must  be  taken 
as  the  literal  expression  of  the  fact.  Uicwopolis  finaliv  gains 
his  cause,  and  announces  his  intention  of  opening  a  private 
market  to  the  I'eloponnesians,  Megarians,  and  lltcotians.  After 
the  parabasis  we  see  l)im  busied  in  fixing  the  boundaries  of  his 
marketplace,  and  the  strangers  whom  lie  has  invited  come  to 
deal  with  him.  Afler  he  has  despatched  his  various  customers, 
the  servant  of  I^aiuachus  brings  the  message  from  which  we 
learn  tliat  the  Clioes  are  about  to  be  celebrated,  eKeXevffc 
Aafui-^tK  ae  Tavrmi^  rij^  itpaj^tit]^  tis  tow  Xoa?  aur^  ^CTa- 
i3ovifat  rwy  ki-xXwv  :  and  the  play  ends  with  the  contrast 
lietwccn  the  wailings  of  Lamnchiis  and  the  triumph  of  Dica-o- 
polis,  who  has  drained  his  ^oet)?  first,  and  desires  to  be  led  to 
the  judges  to  receive  tlie  prize. 

'"  Thi»  ift  IkKckh's  argument.  Itul  perhapt  it  presses  the  Ixni^kfte  of  the  poet  ■ 
lltUe  too  closely.  The  war  mlfcbi  itilemipt  rural  feftlvitics  in  varioun  wayit,  even 
vhea  the  cncm^  wax  not  actuality  in  the  country,  or  tntght  destroy  tlie  property  which 
aflintled  the  tncana  nf  ccleliratinK  them.  One  tjui  hnnlly  inter  fnmi  thii  passat(e  thai 
hostile  itiroaiU  were  unually  expccicd  in  Po«eill«on  on  account  of  the  vitiURe.  Still 
ilie  prenimiptinTi  that  Ari^tnphanea  nuppote*  each  ffttlval  celebrated  at  its  proper  timi! 
wiU  be  nutficienlly  ilrooK. 


I 


1 


On  the  Attic   Dionysiu. 

It  seems  clear  from  this  description  that  there  can  be  no 
more  reasou  for  identifying  the  Lcnaea,  the  actual  epoch  of 
the  performance,  with  one  of  the  festivals  represented  in  the 
action,  than  with  the  otlier  :  and  hence  analoj^y  would  incline 
lis  to  believe  that  the  former  festival  was  equally  distinct  from 
each  of  them.  If  however  it  were  necessary  to  identify  it 
with  eitlier,  it  would  be  with  the  first  rather  than  with  the  last. 
For  it  is  long  after  the  speech  of  Dicietipolis,  in  which  he 
mentions  the  Lentea,  and  after  the  marketings  which  follow  his 
defense,  that  tlie  htrald  eouies  to  proclaim  the  Choes:  aKoi/ere 
Xeo*'  Kara  ra  Trarpia  rof?  ^o«?  llifeti'  wo  rjjs  traKTriyyov' 
OS  o  av  exiritj  UptoTttrrovt  atTKOf  Kti^c^XiJi'Tw  Xrjy^^Tat.  So 
that  the  argument  on  which  Ruhnken  placed  his  chief  depend- 
ence may  be  much  more  efficaciously  turned  against  his  hypo- 
thesis. But  neither  can  the  opinion  which  be  controverted 
derive  any  supjjort  fn>m  the  plot  of  the  Achaniians,  since  it 
affords  not  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  supi>osing  tliat  the  play 
was  exhibited  at  the  rural  Dionysia. 

V.  We  have  next  to  inquire  whether  the  mode  of 
celebrating  the  Lenwa  corresponded  with  that  of  either  of 
tb«  other  festivals,  and  with  which.  This  en<)uiry,  from 
the  scantiness  of  our  information,  must  be  confined  to  one 
point,  the  dramatic  spectacles  exhibited  at  the  several  Diony- 
sia. At  the  flrcat  Dionysia  tragedies  and  comedies  wore 
given,  of  which  the  former  at  least  were  always  new  jjitTCS, 
<ir,  if  ultl,  so  much  altered,  that  they  niiglit  be  cimsidered 
aa  new.  At  the  rural  Dionysia  old  pieces  were  repented  : 
and  no  instance  can  be  pointed  out,  after  the  drama  had 
attained  a  regular  form,  of  a  play  performed  at  that  season 
for  the  first  time.  It  is  indeed  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
poets  would  prefer  exhibiting  their  new  works  in  the  capital, 
before  they  brought  them  on  the  minor  stages.  With  regard 
to  the  Ixina-a,  it  is  certain  that  both  tragedies  and  comedies 
were  exhibited  at  that  festival :  the  instances  that  occur  are 
of  new  pieces:  but  the  appropriation  of  the  description, 
Kaivuw  TfjayiySu/Vy  to  the  Great  Dionysia,  seems  to  indicate 
that  rcjietitions  were  admitted  at  all  the  others.  But  as  to  the 
Anthesteria,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  they  were  accompanied 
with  any  dramatic  exbibitions,  at  least  of  the  same  nature  as 
those  of  thv  other  two  festivals.      Hip|>oluchus  iiidewl,  in  the 


On  the  Attic  Dionj/sia. 


pasfia^o  above  quote*!,  uses  the  words  Aijvaia  Kat  Kvrpov^ 
Btwpdv,  but  this  does  not  mark  the  oaturc  ol*  the  spectacle". 
And  Alciphron,  in  coujjling  the  Xoey  with  rd  ev  tws 
BfuTpoti  Arlvaia^  appears  t«  dlstinguisli  betwetui  HifTeront 
CDturtainnients.  Philocliorus,  ([uoted  by  the  SchuliaMt  on  the 
Frogs  (218),  sjieuks  of  aywve^  o'l  XvrpivtH  KaXovfACt^ty  which 
df>eH  not  Huggest  the  idea  of  a  dramatic  contest.  Philo- 
Btratus  relates  (V.  Ap.  iv.  7.)  tliat  Apolloniu8  was  disap- 
poiuted  at  finding  iiothiug  but  mystical  ceremonies  aud  reli- 
gious i>octry  and  mu^ic  cxhihited  in  the  theatre  at  Athens 
during  liic  Anthesteria,  when  he  expected  to  have  heard  mono* 
dies  and  pieces  of  music,  such  as  belonged  to  trngedy  and 
comedy.  These  passages  contribute  little  toward  deciding  the 
question.  Itut  tlicre  arc  two  others  which  appear  to  prove 
that  dramatic  };[>cctaclc.<t  fonned  part  of  the  amusements  at 
the  Chytri.  One  is  an  extract  from  Thrasyllus,  given  by 
Diogenes  Laertius  in.  56^  tn  which  it  is  said  of  tiie  trugic 
poets:  TCTpeuTt  cpafiatrtv  i^'y'^'''^''^'^^  Atovvcioii,  ArjvaioK, 
Xlaya$rivaioi^y  Kvrpoti^,  wv  to  Teraprov  tjv  aarvpiKOf.  Here 
however  it  is  clear  that  the  four  names  are  an  interpolation  of 
some  very  ignorant  and  injudicious  person,  whose  authority 
cannot  have  the  slightest  weight.  But  the  mention  of  the 
Chytri  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  remembrance  of  an 
institution  of  the  orator  Lycurgus,  relating  to  the  same  fes- 
tival, wliich  is  thus  describetl  in  the  Lives  of  the  Ten  Orators 
(Plut.  VI.  p.  253) :  e't<rrfi'eyKC  te  kui  vufiowy  tov  irepi  Tmw 
KWfitoowyf  aytova  roiv  \vTpoK  eiriTeXcti'  f<f>atii\\ov  ev  tm 
Oearpif/,  Kat  tov  viKrja^ayTa  €k  uaTv  AraraXe-yeff^a*,  irpor^pov 
ovK  efoV,  ava\afi{idi'toy  tov  aywyu  efcXeXoiirora,  to  which  is 
subjoined  another  law,  regulating  the  mode  of  performing  the 
plays  of  the  three  great  tragic  poets.  The  passage  has  been 
variously  inierpreted.  Pclitus  (de  leg.  Alt.  p.  SH)  understood 
it  as  containing  a  direction,  that  the  comedians  should  exhibit 
rival  performances  at  the  Chytri.  Spanheim  mentions  two 
interpretations  (Ran.  p.  Sys),  one  that  the  comedians  should 
give  a  spectacle  at  the  Chytri,  rivalling  those  of  the  theatre, 
another  that  comeilies  should  be  jicrformed  in  the  theatre  in 

*'  This  remark  is  cerUtnly  mie:  but  the  author  docs  not  icciii  to  hare  obierrcil 
that  it  endrelr  dntroyii  the  force  of  the  arKumcnt  drawn  in  a  jirrcnlintf  page  fmin  the 
words  of  bcuR  as  to  the  dramatic  exhibitions  at  Phlf  ir. 


I 


304 


On  the  Attic  Diony^ia. 


like  manner  as  at  tlie  Chytri.  He  himself  prefers  the  first  of 
the  two:  whieli  houever  need  not  detain  us,  as  it  cannot  be 
extracted  from  the  Greek  words.  On  the  other  hand  that 
of  Petitus  is  liable  to  no  other  objcttiou  on  this  score,  thaa 
that  it  does  not  assign  b  distinct  meaning  to  the  epithet  €<pd- 
fxCKKov,  which,  in  a  writer  like  the  Pseudo-Plutarch,  is  a  very 
trifling  difficulty :  nor  is  070)1'  efpafxtWus  a  more  censurable 
redundancy  than  Plutarch's  afitXXa  evaywi'ios ,  which  he  uses 
on  a  similar  occasion  (Solon  c.  29)*  According  to  this  con- 
struction the  passage  raij^ht  seem  to  favour  Ruhnken's  opinion, 
if  the  revival  of  the  contest  ut  the  Chytri  is  brought  into  con- 
nexion with  the  deeay  uf  the  Leneean  festival,  mentioned  by 
the  Scholiast  on  the  Frogs  {U)6  tjt/  tii  *rai  iraptt  rov  Aijva'i- 
Kov  ffvaToKi'})  on  the  authority  of  Aristotle.  Hermauu  adopts 
the  second  of  the  interpretations  mentioned  by  Spanheini,  in 
which  ctpa/juXKov  is  referred  to  Xiit/joi?,  and  he  conceives  that 
the  object  of  the  law  wojj  to  revive,  in  a  new  form  and  under 
legal  sanction,  a  species  of  contest  wliich  had  before  been  pri- 
vately exhibited  at  the  Chytri,  but  had  fallen  into  disuse.  He 
supposes  this  exhibition  to  have  consisted,  not  in  the  regular 
dramatic  recitations,  but  in  readings,  by  which  the  poets  sub- 
mitted their  new  pieces  to  the  judgement  of  a  select  audience. 
The  novelty  of  the  institution  lay,  not  in  the  season,  which 
was  the  same  as  before,  but  in  the  right  conferred  on  the 
successful  poet,  of  exhibiting  Iiis  play  at  the  ensuing  Great 
Dionysia.  That  the  poets  in  fact  read  their  plays  at  the 
Anthesteria,  seems  to  result  from  the  accounts  of  the  death  of 
Sophocles  given  by  his  Greek  biographer,  who,  after  mention- 
ing the  singular  story  told  by  Ister  and  Neanthes,  that  Sopho- 
cles was  choked  in  eating  a  bunch  of  gra]>es  presented  to  him 
at  the  Chocs,  adds  :  "^xrvpo^  £e  (/>*^T',  f'lv  Avnyuftiv  dfayiy- 
wotTKovTa  Kai  tsfiTrecoifTa  -jrept  Td  rt-Atj  t'atjfinTt  fiUKpri) — aw 
Trj  (btiivij  Kat  Ttjv  •<^vyt}i'  arpiiivat.  Ol  cf,  ut*  /lera  -rrjv  tov 
vpa/jiaTOi  avayvoMJiVf  ot€  vikuHu  CKtjpwvOrjf  X'^P^  vixtjOeW 
e^€\tw£.  That  some  such  previous  trial  of  the  pieces  to  be 
produced  at  the  Great  Dionysia  should  have  taken  place,  is 
in  itself  extremely  probable,  and  the  time  of  the  Anthesteria, 
which  left  about  a  month  fur  the  theatrical  preparations,  was 
well  adapted  to  the  purpose.  These  trials  may  have  been  ific 
a'ywP'fs    'x.^Tptvoi    of    Pbilochorus.       We    ai-e    also    informed 


On  the  Jttir  OUmyiia. 


29^ 


V 


that  Sophocles  put  on  mourning  fur  the  dtfath  of  KuripiHes 
in  common  with  nil  the  Athenians,  and  brought  on  his  actors 
vnthuut  their  usual  garlands.  The  grammarian  who  relates 
this  fact  (Thom.  M.  in  vit.  Eurip.)  speaks  as  if  Sophocles 
had  paid  this  mark  of  respect  to  hU  brother  poet  immediately 
on  receiving  the  first  news  of  his  death,  which,  if  Euripides 
died  in  the  first  half  of  the  third  year  of  OI.  9S,  (see  Boeckh 
Gr.  Trag.  Princ.  p.  209)  would  imply  that  the  mourning  took 
place  at  the  rural  Dionysia  in  Poseideoti.  Otherwise  the  de- 
scription might  refer  to  the  funeral  rites  performed  at  the 
Chytri,  when,  as  we  learn  from  Theoponipus  (Schol.  Ran.  SSO), 
it  was  usual  toiJ?  Trapaytvofi^vov^  vwep  Ttuu  BavovTOiv  tXcujaaQai 
Toy  'V.ppitivj  and  then  it  would  harnioniKe  with  the  statement, 
that  the  death  of  Sophocles  occurred  at  the  AnCheste^ia'^ 

We  might  adopt  this  view  of  Hermann's,  without  admit- 
ting his  construction  of  the  words  of  the  law,  which  seems 
far  less  probable  than  that  of  Pelitus.  But  at  all  events  the 
utmost  that  can  bo  inferred  from  the  law  is,  that  at  a  certain 
period  comecbes  were  exhibited  nt  the  Anthpsteiia  :  of  tragedies 
we  hear  notliing,  whereas  both  were  performed  at  the  Lenjea. 
On  the  other  hand  the  theatrical  regulations  of  the  Lencea  were 
at  variance  with  those  of  the  rural  Dionysia.  For  not  to 
mention  the  improbability  of  the  supposition,  that  the  many 
new  pieces  brought  out  at  the  Leneea  should  have  been  pro- 
duced for  the  first  time  at  the  rural  Dionysia,  the  part  which 
foreigners  were  allowed  to  take  in  the  exhibitions  at  Leuica, 
implies  that  they   were  under  the  immediate  controul  of  the 


'■  In  hifl  OMUM  Or,  Tn^.  Prlnc  p.  8ll>  the  uithor  came  co  the  eoncluiion  thsi 
Sophocles  4lied  sbortly  tfttt  producing  his  Imi  work  (a  oew  cdiUoD  of  his  Antixooe) 
At  the  rural  Dloajrxii.  But  he  nuw  retrtcts  thix  opiaion  u  hftving  been  founded  uii  the 
belief  he  then  entcrtmined  that  Sophotlcft  died  OL  itS.  3,  which.,  u  he  obicrvet,  isimpos. 
sible  if  the  Frof;ii  were  u  he  now  believe*,  perforroed  in  Oimelioa  of  th«t  jtar  si  the  Le< 
ti«« :  for  ArintophancM  niusi  b*ve  b^jpun  his  comedy  before  the  rural  Dionynta  in  Pascl- 
dcon.  lie  ujri  (p.  ttj)  :  Euripides  prolisbly  died  (M.  Hd.  2,  u  the  Pari*D  mvble  state*, 
■nd  the  Uu  piece  of  Sophocles,  before  which  Euripides  was  already  dead,  tniy  have  been 
publicly  n»d  at  the  Chocs  of  the  name  year  that  is,  in  Anthnterioo,  Ol.  !)3.  3,  oat  ex- 

thibited  at  the  mral  Dionyeia. — He  had  alio  conceived  that  the  story  firom  Ister  and  Ne- 
Bttbeit  about  the  manner  of  the  poet'i  death  (that  Callipplde*  sent  hitn  a  bunch  of  grapes 
wa/ia  Toils  X«at,  and  that  Sophocles  wa»  choked  fiaXatrra  tl%  -ro  imifta  paya  i-ri  vfufHt' 
*,-/^ok>aay)  la  more  consistent  witli  the  »e«wm  of  the  rural  Dionyaia.  He  now  ubservm; 
it  is  itldeed  inconi|iiehensihlc  hnw  unripe  grapes  come  M  lie  menttrHied  alonf;  with  ihe 
fTiocs:  hut,  to  pa**  over  the  well  known  alt^otical  tnierpretaiion  of  tlie  anecdote,  the 
difliculty  it  nol  rcmovct)  hy  MihMittiting  the  niral  Dionysia. 
Vol..  II.   No.  'K  Vr 


296 


On  the  Attic  Dionyaw. 


state,  not  like  those  of  the  rural  Dionvaia  {>eculiar  to  the 
several  rural  districts,  where  strangers  would  have  been  ex- 
cluded by  religious  scruples  from  taking  a  share  in  the  local 
solemnities.  As  little  can  it  be  believed  that  they  were  per- 
mitted to  fill  so  important  an  ofiice  as  that  of  choragus  at 
the  Anthesteria^  a  festival  of  extraordinary  sanctity,  which 
included  a  variety  of  mysterioua  ceremonies,  for  which  none 
but  the  wife  of  the  Archon  king  and  some  select  female 
attendants  (the  yepaipat)  were  held  qualifieil,  and  to  which 
no  other  AtheniauH  were  admiUeil.  The  Lena^a  indeed,  as 
well  as  the  Anthesteria,  are  under  the  immediate  superiutendeuce 
of  the  Archon  kingi  and  this  would  alone  be  a  strong  argu- 
ment agoinsl  their  identity  witli  the  rural  Dionysia,  which  were 
necessarily  directed  by  the  several  local  magistrates,  the  ^^/xap- 
^oi.  But  on  the  other  hand  we  learn  from  the  aboveqnoted 
inscription  containing  the  account  of  the  ^cp/xaTtKovt  that  the 
Leua>a  were  celebrated  with  a  public  banquet  at  the  expense 
of  the  state :  whereas  at  the  Chocs  (as  wc  gather  from  the 
anecdote  of  Demades  in  Pint.  Ucsp.  Gor.  Pr.  c.  95)  each  citi- 
zen received  a  sum,  with  whieh  he  was  to  provide  for  his  own 
repast.  Entertainments  indeed  were  given  by  persons  whose 
office  connected  them  with  the  festival,  as  in  the  Acharnians 
the  priest  of  Bacchus  invites  Dicneopolis  to  a  banquet  at  the 
Choes:  but  on  this  occasion  the  hont  provided  only  the  accessa- 
ries of  the  feast,  such  as  are  dcscrihed  in  v.  1055  and  the  follow- 
ing lines :  the  more  solid  materials  and  the  measure  of  wine 
each  guest  is  expected  to  bring  with  him  (lOtil  &  foil.)  So 
far  therefore  all  the  indications  we  are  able  to  collect,  point 
rather  at  the  diversity  than  the  identity  of  the  Lcnffa,  and 
either  of  the  Dionysia  with  which  they  liave  been  compared. 

VI.  This  result  appears  to  be  confirmed  hv  the  traditions 
preserved  as  to  the  occasion  and  nature  of  the  various  Dionysia. 
The  name  of  the  Lenaa  evidently  connects  (he  festival  with 
the  operations  of  the  vintage,  and  separates  it  from  the  season 
and  the  occupations  of  the  Anthesteria.  In  the  same  degree 
it  may  certaiidy  at  first  sight  seem  to  lead  us  directly  to  the 
rural  Dionysia.  For  tliis  was  unquestionably  the  feast  of  the 
vintage,  held  indeetl  late  in  the  year,  but  not  later  than  the 
vintage  takes  place,  in  a  much  more  rigorous  climate,  in  some 
of  the  vineyards  which  produce  the  Tokay  wine,   where  the 


On  the  Attic  Dionyaia. 


S97 


grapes  arc  kept  hanging  till  December,  frozen  and  often 
covered  with  snow,  and  are  then  accounted  to  yield  a  wine 
very  superior  to  that  made  in  the  preceding  months  of  the 
{flame  year.  Moreover  had  the  festival  been  placed  earlier  in 
the  year,  it  would  in  some  years  hnvc  happened  before  the  end 
of  the  vintage.  But  the  object  of  the  festival  in  Anthesterion 
is  entirely  different.  On  llie  first  day  {UtBo'tyia)  the  casks 
are  broached  and  tastetl,  on  the  second  (Xo«)  the  new  wine 
is  drunk.  A  similar  operation  is  said  to  be  performed  in 
Hungary  in  the  month  of  February.  This  therefore  can  not 
be  the  festival  which  derived  its  name  from  the  winepress 
erected  in  the  place  called  Lcnson,  at  which  the  poets  an- 
ciently received  a  prize  of  sweet  must  {rpvywS'tav  (paai, 
oia  TO  Tois  €vooKiiiov<Tiv  CTTi  TftJ  i\ijt'aifp  yXtvKos'  oiooaOat, 
otrep  fKoXovv  xot/'ya— the  writer  Trept  KWfitoolan  in  Kuster 
Aristoph.  p.  XI.)  But  yet  it  will  not  follow  that  the  occasion 
of  the  Lensea  was  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  the  rural 
Dionysia.  These  were  common  to  the  whole  country:  the 
former  were  attached  to  a  particular  sjHJt.  It  may  easilv  l»e 
imagined,  that,  after  the  general  vintage  had  ended,  the  fruit 
of  some  vines  was  still  reserved  to  a  later  season,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  extracting  from  them  a  nectar^  with  which  the  erec- 
tion of  the  first  winepress  was  commemorated,  the  successful 
]K>ets  rewarded,  and  the  Lcnzean  gtid  honoured,  and  from 
which  the  festival  itself  may  have  received  the  name  of 
\\ix(ipo<tia.  (above  p.  279.) 

The  partisans  of  Ruhnken''s  hypothesis  felt  the  difficulty 
of  assigning  a  vintage  festival  to  the  month  of  February,  and 
have  attempted  to  meet  it,  by  supposing  that  the  Lentea, 
originally  a  rural  festival,  had  in  course  of  time  been  trans- 
ferred to  tiie  city.  Spalding  (De  Dionysiis  p.  7fi)  conceived 
that,  after  the  concentration  of  the  Attic  state  had  been  effected 
by  Theseus,  a  festival  was  instituted  to  supply  the  place  of  the 

L rural  Dionysia,  for  those  who  had  removed  their  habitations  to 
the  capital :  but  that  tlie  new  festival,  in  order  that  it  might 
not  interfere  with  the  old  holidays,  was  fixed  in  Anthesterion. 
The  third  and  latest  of  the  Dionysia  he  supposes  t<)  have  been 
instituted  for  the  purpo-ie  of  displaying  the  public  magnificence 
to  foreigners^  and  therefore  anncxe<l  to  Elaphebolion.  He 
thinks  that  this  view  of  the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  re- 


999 

*L'itival^  but  was  very 

iltirgement  may  have 

•■iiggeated  perhaps  by 

Ivl  uui  have  been  taken 

iliv  marshy  gruund  fur 

site  of  the  winepress, 

■M  events  conformable 

-^pnrta  the  temple   of 

Marsh  from  the  nature 

it  had   become  dry  ". 

jd!>o  :  and  the  marsh 

but  perhaps  originally 

lionce  of  applying  it, 

.dious  uses  connected 

>if  these  is  described  by 

reliites  that   the  Athe- 

iue  (yXeiiKOs)  from  the 

f  Bacchus  in  the  Marsh 

Irink  of  it  themselves: 

Limnaeus,   because  the 

i   with  water :  and  for 

.  Nymphs  and  nurses  of 

increases  the  measure  of 

.-•served  by  Athenaeus  in 

>d  of  Bacchus  mixt  with 

lodemus  evidently  alludes 

oncnns  to  relate  their  origin. 

•w  far  the  preceding  conclu- 

1  transmitted  to  iia  regarding 

'  Bacchus  into  Attica.     The 

.  ii^tyon   as  the  first  king  who 

•  Miti:  in  his  reign  Bacchus  came 

iiod  by  Semachua,  and  presented 

ii   (Syncell.  p.  i^y?  u-d.  Bonn);   and 

luary  of  Bacchus  in  Athens,  Pausa- 

kiires  in  clay,  representing  king  Am- 

iis  and  other  gods  (l.  2.  5.)      We  arc 


298 


Ot»  the  Attic  Dionysia. 


semblance  between  some  features  of  the  two  festivals  held  in 
Poseidcon  and  Anthestcrian.     The  former  is  the  season  which, 
by   the  consent  of  almost  all    nations,  has  been  dedicated  to 
mirth  and  jollity.      Its  festival  correj.ponded  to  the  Roman  Sa- 
turnalia.     But  at  the  Antliesteria  likewise  presents  were  made, 
and  the  slaves  enjoyed  a  temporary  freedom,  us  is  signified  by 
the   verse,   BiJpn^e    Kape?,  ovket   ' .XvBeari^^ia.      It  does  not 
however  Appear  that  the  custom  of  making  presents  prevailed 
at  the  rural  Dionysia:  at  the  Anthesteria  it  may  have  arisen 
out  of  the  usa^e  already   mentioned,  according  to  which  the 
guests  carried  their  own  viands  to  their  hosOs  banquet.     The 
other  practice,  of  extending  the  gladness  of  the  season  to  the 
slaves,  which  wa.**  common  to  both  festivals,  may  be  satisfac- 
torily explainetl  from  the  character  of  the  Gtxi,  the  dispenser 
of  joy  and  freedom,  without  the  supposition  of  any  historical 
connexion.     The  mode  in  which    Thucydides  speaks   of  the 
Anthesteria,  is   so  far  from   confirming  Spalding''s  argument, 
that  it  leads  to  a  directly  opposite  conclusion.     The  historian, 
after  relating   (ii.  l.";)  that  it  was  the  revolution  efToctcd  by 
Theseus  that  Hrst  made  Athens  a  great  city,  proceeds  to  illus- 
trate and  corroborate  his  assertion  by  the  fact,  that  the  ancient 
temples  were  found  cither  on  the  hill,  or  nt  its  foot  on  the 
south  side  within  the  limits  of  the  nnte-Thesenn  city-      Among 
the  rest  he  mentions  the  sanctuary  of  Dionysus  cV  AiVvaii't  the 
god  in  whose  honour  the  more  ancient  Dionysia  were  celebrated 
in    Anthestcrion,   at   Athens  as  in  luuia.     From  this  it  seems 
clear  that  the  Anthesteria  did  not  arise  out  of  the  Union,  but 
existed  before  it.     These  he  cal]»  tlic  more  ancient,  evidently 
in  comparison  with  the  festival  of  Klaphebolion,  which  was  the 
most  splendid  and  celebrated,  and  was  probably  instituted  to 
represent  those  of  the  various  rural  districts.      The  month  may 
have  been  chosen,  if  not  with  a  view  to  the  season  of  the  year, 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  next  after  Poseideon  whicli  was 
not  already  occupied    by  a  kindred  festival.     The  Cecropian 
city,  like  many  other  jilaces  in  Attica,  had  two  Dinnysian  festi- 
vals,   which    were   attached    to   peculiar    li>iL-al    traditions   and 
usages,  and  which  survived  after  many  otiiers  in  the  country 
had    fallen   into  disuse.       Both    were    celebrated   in    the    same 
sanctuary  of  Bacchus,  the  Lciueon,  in  the   Marsh,  which  ori- 
ginally lay  a  litlle  wny  out  of  the  city,  and  so  might  lend  anti- 


Oti  the  Attic  Dlonysia. 


'299 


^V  quaries  to  »peak  of  the  Len^a  as  a  rural  festival,  but  was  very 
^B  early  inclosed  within  the  walls-     This  enlargement  may  have 

^H  taken  place  before  the  age  of  Theseus,  sufi;ge8ted  perhaps  by 

^H  the  sanctity  of  the  gruund,  which  would  not  have  bet^n  taken 

^^^_  into  the  original  city.  The  selection  of  the  marshy  ground  for 
^^^H  the  sanctuary  of  Bacchus,  and  for  the  site  of  the  winepress, 
^^^^  admits  of  various  explanations.  It  \%  at  all  events  conformable 
^V  to  the  practice  of  other  cities.     So  at   Sparta  the  temple   of 

Bacchus  stood  in  the  suburb  called  the  Marsh  from  the  nature 
of  the  ground,  though  in  Strabo^s  time  it  had  become  dry  "- 
Such  was  no  doubt  the  case  at  Athens  also  :  and  the  marsh 
was  chosen  for  the  sake  of  the  water :  but  perhaps  originally 
without  any  other  motive  than  the  convenience  of  applying  it, 
collected  in  an  artificial  reservoir,  to  various  uses  connected 
with  the  festivals  of  Bacchus.  One  of  these  is  described  by 
^  Phanodemus  (Athcnteus   p.    4fi5)   who   relates   that   the  Athe- 

nians were  used  to  take  sweet  new  wine  {y\evKo^)  from  the 
casks,  and  to  mix  it  near  the  temple  of  Bacchus  in  the  Martih 
in  honour  of  the  god,  and  then  to  drink  of  it  thanselves: 
whence  Bacchus  received  the  epithet  Limnseus,  because  the 
new  wine  waa  then  first  drunk  diluted  with  water:  and  for 
the  like  reason  the  springs  were  called  Nymphs  and  nurses  of 
Bacchus,  because  the  mixture  of  water  increases  the  measure  of 
wine:  aa  Timotheus,  in  a  fragment  prescr\'ed  by  Athensus  in 
the  same  passage,  speaks  of  the  blood  of  Bacchus  mixt  with 
the  fresh  tears  of  tlie  Nymphs.  Phanodeuius  evidently  alludes 
to  the  Wido'tyta  and  the  \ocv,  and  means  to  relate  their  origin. 
VII.  It  remains  to  inquire  how  far  the  preceding  conclu- 
sions are  confirmed  by  the  accounts  transmitted  to  ua  regarding 
the  introduction  of  the  worship  of  Bacchus  into  Attica.  The 
Attic  traditions  mention  Amphictyon  as  the  first  king  who 
received  the  god  in  his  dominions:  in  his  reign  Bacchus  came 
into  Attica,  and  was  entertained  by  Scnmchus,  and  presented 
his  daughter  with  a  roeskin  (Syucell.  p.  tiy?  ed.  Bonn);  and 
in  a  house  behind  a  sanctuary  of  Bacchus  in  Athens,  Pausa- 
nias  saw  a  groupe  of  figures  in  clay,  representing  king  Am- 
phictyon  feasting  Bacchus  and  other  gods  (1.  2.  ^.)      Wc  arc 

'*  VIII.  p.  2M.  TO  vaXatAu  i\it*¥»'^*  ri  wpoda^ttoii,  khI  tKtiXcivv  avrA  hl/iimt'  xal 


800  On  the  MHc  iHony»ia. 

^  further  informed  by  Philochorus  (Athenajiis  ii.  p.  38.),  that 
kmphictyon  was  the  first  who  learnt  from  Bacchus  the  art  of 

[mixing  wine  with  water  in  due  proportions,  so  that  men,  who 
vere  before  overpowered  by  the  strength  of  the  liquor,  could 

^hold  their  heads  upriglit,  and  hence  the  king  erected  an  altar 
to  the  upright  Bacchus  (op9os  Aiovuam)  in  the  temple  of  the 
Seasons,  as  the  nurses  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine :  and  hard  by 
he  raised  an  altar  to  the  Nymphs,  in  cx^mmemoration  of  the 
mixture :  for  the  Nymphs  aiv  said  to  be  the  nurses  of  Bacchus: 
and  he  ordained  tliat  ai'tcr  meals  men  should  drink  of  the  un- 
mixt  wine,  but  only  to  taste  it,  for  a  sample  of  the  power  of 
the  ffood  god;  and  afterwards  diluted  as  much  as  they  would. 
Here  it  is  evident  (whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  the  epithet  ofS6<i)  tiiat  lljc  worship  referred  to 
Aniphictyon  is  that  of  the  Limnican  god,  which  Thucydides 
also  asserts  to  have  been  the  most  ancient.  The  institution  of 
the  Choea  took  place  later,  on  the  occasion  of  the  arrival  of 
Orestes,  according  to  Apullodorus  under  Pandion,  or,  as  Plia- 
nodemus  determined  it  with  greater  attention  to  chronological 
accuracy,  under  Demophoon.  But  in  the  reign  of  Pandion 
the  first,  the  same  in  which  Ceres  came  to  Eleusis,  Bacchus 
again  visited  Attica.  On  this  occasion  he  was  received  by 
Icarius,  and  iK'stowed  on  him  the  gifts  which  proved  so  fatal 
to  him  and  to  his  daughter  Erigone.  The  anger  of  the  gods, 
which  was  provoked  by  her  death,  was  appeased  by  rites  which 
ever  after  distinguished  the  festival  of  the  vintage  (Apollo- 
dorus  III.  14.  7-  Hyginus  Fab.  130  festum  oaeiltationis — 
pet  mndetniam.  Astronom.  ii.  Arctophylax).  This  legend 
clearly  relates  to  the  rural  Dionysia:  in  it  the  scene  is  laid 
in  the  country',  in  Icaria,  and  all  turns  upon  the  cultivation 
of  the  vine  and  the  proc^rss  of  winemakiiig,  wfiile  in  that  of 
Amphictyon  it  is  the  mixture  ami  use  of  the  liijuur  that  con- 
stitute the  motive  of  the  tradition.  It  does  not  however  follow 
tliat  the  rural  Iraditiim  was  of  later  origin  than  the  worship  of 
tlie  Leiiaian  giul,  which  could  nut  be  the  fact ;  but  only  that  a 
distinguishing  feature  of  the  fiirmer  was  introduced  at  a  com- 
paratively late  period.  Those  rural  rites  are  manifestly  of  the 
same  kind  with  those  which  Pegasus  intrmbiced  from  Eleu- 
thera*,  as  appears  both  from  the  siniilaritv  of  the  two  legends 
(Scliol.  Aristoph.  Aehani.   ii.  •:i'^i)^  and  from  the  oracle  men- 


On  the  Attic  Diimyaia. 


301 


tioncd  by  Pausaiiias  (I.  ^.  <i)  which,  on  the  arrival  of  Pegasus, 
reminded  the  Athenians  of  the  earlier  presence  of  the  god  in 
the  land  in  the  time  of  Icarius.  To  this  Eleiitherian  god  the 
Great  Dit>nysia  were  consecrated :  and  therefore  the  question 
afi  to  the  epoch  at  which  they  were  introduced  depends  upon 
the  date  of  tlic  migration  of  Pegasus  from  Eleuthern.*-  That 
they  were  later  than  the  Union  under  Theseus  appears  from 
the  sik-nce  of  tradition,  which  though  it  speaks  of  the  various 
relations  between  that  hero  and  Bacchus,  never  mentions  him 
as  the  founder  of  tiie  Great  Dionysia.  Kleuther»  was  cele- 
brated as  an  ancient  seat  of  the  worship  of  Bacchus.  It  was 
one  of  the  places  which  claimed  the  honour  of  having  given 
him  birth  (Diodor.  m.  6tj.  'MAeToi  Ka\  Nd^*oi,  7rpu<t  de  tovtow 
o'l  Tm  liXeu^f/sac  oxKOuiTfv,  Kai  Tijio*,  Koi  trXeiov^  erepot  "rrap 
eauTois  airo<l}aivofTai  TenviiS^vai).  Its  hero  Eleuther  (perhaps 
Bacchus,  Liberj  himself,  though  he  is  called  a  son  of  Apullo) 
was  said  to  have  erected  the  first  statue  to  the  god,  aud  to 
have  taught  the  right  observance  of  his  worsliip  (Ilyginui* 
Fab.  SS5.  Schol.  IlesitKl.  Theog.  54).  This  Pegasus  the 
Eleutherian  brought  with  him  to  Athens:  and  the  ancient 
image  of  the  god,  which  was  carried  every  year  in  procession 
from  his  temple  to  a  chapel  in  the  Academy  (Paiisan.  i.  2.0.  2), 
had  once  stood  in  the  temple  at  Eleuthcrfc,  where  Pausaniaa 
saw  a  copy  of  it  (i.  38.  8).  It  was  not  without  opposition  that 
Pegasus  succeeded  in  establishing  the  rites  of  the  god  at 
Athens:  the  resistance  of  the  Athenians  was  only  overcome 
by  manifest  tokens  of  divine  anger,  and  by  the  intervention 
of  the  Delphic  oracle  (Schol.  Aristoph.  Ach.  2+2).  But  what 
was  the  motive  that  led  Pegiisus  to  transplant  the  sacred 
image  to  a  foreign  city,  where  he  was  not  even  sure  of  a 
friendly  rtxreption?  Tlie  motive  is  not  as.signed  by  tradition, 
but  it  may  be  collected  from  history.  We  are  informe<l  that 
the  people  of  Eleutheraf  united  themselves  with  the  Athenians, 
not  from  compuhion,  but  voluntarily,  through  tlieir  hatred  of 
Thebes  (Paus.  i.  38.  8).  This  has  all  the  appearance  of 
being  a  genuine  historical  tradition :  but  yet  the  event  must 
have  occurred  in  very  early  times,  since  we  have  no  account, 
as  in  the  case  of  Plata?a,  of  its  date.  In  the  time  of  Pnusanias 
(l.  86.  9)  the  site  of  Eleutheric  was  only  marked  by  a  few 
ruins.     Strabo  (ix.  p.  284)  says  that  it  was  uncertain  whether 


SOS 


On  the  Attic  Dionyttia. 


it  belonged  to  Plata'a  or  to  Btcotia:  Pausaniaa  considers  it  as 
part  of  Attica.  But  it  appears  from  Tlmcydides  (v.  42)  that, 
according  to  an  ancient  treaty  between  the  Athenians  and  the 
Boeotians,  Panacton  was  not  to  be  occupied  by  either  people, 
but  to  be  common  ground  (tnj^erfpovs  oliettf  to  ywplov  aWa 
Kotvrj  vinttv)'  If  this  was  the  ease  with  Panacton,  which  lay 
nearer  to  Athens  than  EIcuthcrH?,  it  was  probably  so  with 
Elcuthcra;  and  its  district.  The  inhabitants  must  have  mi- 
grated in  a  body  to  Athens,  leaving  their  town  to  the  first 
occupant.  Hence  it  was  not  numbered  among  the  Attic 
demes.  The  time  when  the  power  and  hostility  of  Thebes 
induced  the  people  of  Kleutherie  to  throw  themselves  into 
the  arms  of  Athens,  may  therefore  have  Ix^n  the  half-historical 
period  which  intervenes  between  the  Return  of  the  Bceotians 
from  Ame,  and  that  of  the  Heraclcids.  We  read  of  a  war 
which  arose  between  the  Athenians  and  Boeotians  at  this  period 
on  account  of  some  disputed  ground,  the  district  of  CEnoe 
(Conon  39)  or  Celfcna.'  (Schol.  Aristoph.  Acharn.  146)  of 
which  the  former  lay  not  far  from  Elcutherap.  The  contest 
wai  decided  by  the  wcUknown  stratagem  of  the  Attic  cham- 
pion Melanthus,  who  was  believed  to  have  been  favoured  by 
an  apparition  of  Bacchus,  and  in  conse(|nence  to  have  honoured 
him  under  the  title  of  MeXai'at'yif-  with  the  festival  'Atra-rovMa- 
This  tradition  connects  itself  in  a  very  simple  and  natural 
manner  with  those  about  Eleutliera*  and  Panactun.  After  the 
progress  of  the  Tbeban  power  liad  induced  the  inhabitants  of 
the  latter  place  to  quit  their  ancient  seats,  the  Tbebans  took 
possession  of  it,  and  proceeded  to  make  encroachments  upon 
I  Attica.      These  were  repelk-*!,  with  the  aid  of  the  newly  re- 

[  ceived   god :    but    Eleuthero?  and   Panacton  continued    to  be 

'  debatable  ground.     If  these  combinations  are   well  founded, 

tthc  institution  of  the  Great  Dionysia,  the  latest  festival  of 
Bacchu.'i  at  Athens,  will  but  a  little  precede  the  Return  of 
the  Heracleids. 
The  reader  will  readily  perceive,  that  the  author's  main 
proposition  will  be  vury  slightly  affected  by  the  success  of  his 
endeavours  to  determine  the  order  and  the  epochs  in  which 
the   Attic    Dionysia    were    instituted :  and    whatever    may    be 


r 


On  the  Attic  iHonysia. 

thought  of  the  argunientH  proposod  in  the  last  section,  it  will 
bo  riifficult  to  resist  the  accumulation  of  evidence  which  he 
has  produced  for  the  separate  existence  of  the  Lenfea,  as  a 
distinct  festival  celebrated  in  Gamelion.  Still  the  subject 
lost  discussed  is  one  |}crhaps  not  less  interesting  than  the 
inain  question  itself:  and  therefore  cur  readers  will  probably 
not  be  unwilling:  to  compare  I3oeckh*'s  view  of  It  with  one  pro- 
posed by  Welcker  in  his  Navhtrag  «u  der  Schrift  neater  die 
/Escbyli^che  Trilogies  from  which  we  subjoin  a  short  extract. 
The  author  conceives,  that  the  religion  of  Racchus,  as  one 
of  rustic  origin,  and  long  confined  to  the  peasantry  who  were 
employed  in  the  care  of  Hocks  and  the  cultivation  of  the  vine, 
met  with  opposition  from  the  kind's  and  noble  families,  as 
encouraging  its  followers  to  rise  above  their  station,  and  to 
encroach  upon  arisiocratical  pri^'ileges.  He  thinks  that  the 
epithets  of  the  god  which  describe  him  as  a  Deliverer  ("KXev- 
depi«, 'EXcuf^cjoeup,  Auoriw,  \vGew)  refer,  not  to  a  release  from 
care  and  grief,  but  to  the  ulwlition  of  jioliticnl  distinctions, 
which  the  h)wer  classes  gradually  achieved,  an<l  nnturnlly 
ascrilied  to  their  tutelary  deity.  This  he  believes  to  be  the 
real  ground  of  several  Attic  legends :  as  that  of  the  stranger 
Melanthus,  who  conquers  and  gains  the  crown  by  the  aid  of 
Bacchus,  who  appeared  to  him  in  a  rustic  garb  {<7vv  ay^miKiKt^ 
a^4f^aTt  Schol.  Aristoph.  Pac.  890)  and  was  afterward  ho- 
noureti  as  ^loyt/rro^  WeXavOi^tjv  or  McXawa'yK:  that  of  the 
daughters  of  Klcuther  (the  author,  perhaps  by  mistake, 
names  ErcchthcuB,  but  refers  to  Suidas:  MeXai'),  who  treated 
the  god  witli  contempt,  and  were  pimished  with  madness: 
that  of  .Egeus,  who,  he  imagines,  represents  the  A'lyiKopetiy 
the  worshippers  of  Bacchus,  and  who,  though  not  sprung  from 
the  royal  line,  but  onlv  adf^tpted  by  Pandion,  marries  the 
daughter  of  Hoples,  and   becomes   king  of   Athens  ^^       After 

*'  The  tnurliLitM  of  /Efitvt*  with  Mcta  (whone  tumc  connactji  her  with  the  noble 
nice  of  the  M»rr»ofi^iii)  with  Ch«lciopc  lUughier  of  ' riifqwar^,  with  Autocihc 
daughter  of  Pcneuii,  with  .'t^thra  daughter  of  ihe  xAge  riuhrui,  all  uhnil  of  the 
same  interpreiAtinn.  if  v^gcum  repmctits  ■  cImh  which  Ttne,  t>oni  k  corKlitlou  of 
IwUtlcal  dej^radmion,  lo  an  equality  with  the  races  which  in  earlier  times  claimed  the 
excluKtve  pmsenion  of  power,  valour,  anil  wisdom.  Uut  In  hia  TrUo/eic  the  aulboT 
adopted  .Mueller*!!  view  of  (f^jceuB,  a«  anotlicr  name  for  ilaaei/iiiv  (Alycunv).  He 
now  object*  to  it  on  ihe  ground  iha'  tn  ca»e»  of  n  duuUc  (jencaloKy,  like  that  of  The- 
seus, there  in  usually  no  cotincTrion  between  the  nnine^  of  lh*  hrniir  and  the  divine 
pnrenC. 

Vol.    II.  No.  5.  Qa 


I 


I 


304  On  the  Attic  DUmyHa, 

thi»  he  proceeds  as  follows :  (p.  ^07.)  In  a  similar  sense,  it 
appears  to  me,  we  ought  to  understand  the  ether  Attic  legend 
concerning  the  worship  of  Bacchus^  which  relates,  that  an 
image  of  Bacchus  Eleutliercus  was  brought  by  Pegasus  with 
the  sanction  of  the  oracle  from  Eleutherte  to  Athens,  The 
name  of  Pegasus  is  derived  from  the  springs  which  this  re- 
ligion hallowed.  Amphictyon  was  represented  in  a  groupe 
of  figures  in  clay,  entertaining  liacchus  with  other  gods:  for 
in  an  Ainphictyonic  confederacy  there  niust  always  be  a 
variety  of  gods.  The  same  king  made  ordinances,  regulating 
the  mixture  of  wine  and  the  mode  of  drinking,  according  tu 
gravity  and  decency.  A  legend  explains  the  characteristic 
ceremony  of  the  festival  (the  (paWaywyiat)  by  the  circum- 
stance, that  Pegasus  was  not  at  first  well  received  by  the 
Athenians.  It  is  not  improbable  that  some  old  families  in 
the  city  may  have  resisted  the  introduction  of  these  rites: 
but  in  sucli  legends  there  are  scarcely  any  limits  to  the  free- 
dom of  fiction.  Phdoohorus  on  the  otlier  hand  explains  the 
Aiouva-o^  oftOov  in  the  ten^ple  of  the  Seasons,  as  a  sign  that 
men  ought  to  keep  their  heads  up,  and  not  drink  to  excess  ; 
a  practical  edifying  application,  suited  to  an  age  which  was 
incapable  ttf  entering  into  the  spirit  of  a  physiological  reli- 
gion. 'Vhf  degree  iu  which  thi.s  iucajiacity  prevailed,  is 
proved  by  the  language  of  Fhauodemus,  Theophrastus,  Ti- 
motheus  &c.  (above  p.  299)  which  shews  that  even  the  true 
relation  of  Bacchus  to  Linina.'  (the  Attic  Nysa),  and  to  water 
in  general,  was  no  longer  understood  or  was  explained  away. 
But  according  to  this  tradition  Bacchus  had  in  fact  been  en- 
tertained in  the  deme  of  Semacbu.s,  by  Semachus  and  his 
daughter!:,  to  whom  he  gave  the  roeskiu,  and  from  whom  his 
prie8tetiHei>  descended  (Steph.  B.  ^tffj.a-)^lSai).  Semachus 
according  to  Phihichorus  was  in  the  district  of  Epacria,  pro- 
bably toward  the  Ikeotian  frontier,  which  is  also  sup|>osod 
to  have  been  the  situation  of  Icaria.  Tlie  cooperation  of 
the  oracle  may  have  been  a  matter  of  fact :  it  is  also  possible 
that  a  connexion  may  have  bee;i  formed  with  Eleutheros,  as 
a  place  eminently  distinguished  for  the  worship  of  Bacchus, 
and  that  an  image  may  have  been  brought  tlience.  But  it  is 
probable  that  this  took  place  after  the  union  of  the  Attic 
afi<ptKTiov£Vt  which  is  expressed  by  the  name  of  Amphictyon^ 


On  the  AUie  Diony^ia. 


305 


so  that  a  general  Attic  festival  was  i-stablishifl  even  before 
the  Great  Dionysia  of  the  Thescan  city,  wliich  themHelvcs 
were  at  least  earlier  than  the  Ionian  migration.  A»  the  an. 
cient  visit  of  the  God  to  Icarius,  which  the  oracle  itself 
touches  on^  did  not  extend  his  benefits  to  Athens  and  the 
whole  of  Attica,  a  new  appearance  of  the  ^d  was  exhibited 
of  more  comprehensive  efficacy.  But  as  from  the  very  no- 
tion of  an  amphictiony  there  could  not  be  a  house  of  Ainphic- 
tyonids,  the  priestesses,  who  are  cither  the  Pythian  Tliyiads, 
to  whom  the  present  of  the  roeskin  seems  very  appropriate, 
or  the  yepaifxti  of  the  Anthesteria,  were  taken  from  one  of 
the  demes  wliere  the  worship  of  Bacchus  had  been  long  esta- 
blished, that  of  the  Seuiachidie.  In  Stephanus  indeed  we 
only  read  that  his  priestesses  descended  from  the  daughters 
of  Semachus;  but  that  by  tlieite  priestesses  we  are  to  under- 
stand ncit  th«)RO  of  the  rural  district,  hut  those  of  the  capital, 
is  clear  from  the  statement  annexed  in  Eusebius  and  Synccl- 
lus»  that  Semachus  received  this  blessing  in  the  reign  of 
Ampbictyon.  To  soften  the  anachronism  others,  according  to 
Kusebius,  placed  the  arrival  of  Bacchus  under  the  no  less  |)urely 
mythical  kings,  the  second  Cecrops,  and  Pandion.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  utterly  impossible  to  determine  either  the  epoch  of 
the  god's  up{>carance,  or  liis  nature  and  origin,  with  the  scanty 
fragments  we  have  remaining  of  the  Actliides^  and  considering 
the  arbitrary  manner  in  which  the  traditions  of  different  or- 
ders of  men,  framed  with  different  views,  hiive  been,  arliftcially 
or  through  misconception,  arranged  and  interwoven  according 
to  historical  conditions,  as  if  they  were  all  of  the  same  kind. 
In  general  however  we  may  say  that  from  times  so  ancient 
as  to  He  beyond  the  investigation  of  the  most  learned  Athe- 
nians, the  worship  of  Bacchus  existed  at  Icaria,  on  mount 
Icarius,  at  Seniaclms,  Lenieus,  Phlyee,  which  last  place  (pro- 
bably with  reference  to  the  Theban  w<jrship,  though  this 
way  have  been  only  an  afterthought)  honoured  the  Ismenian 
nymphs  together  with  Atovi/o-of  ''AvOkk,  anil  had  dramatic 
spectacles,  and  in  other  denies  uf  Attica;  of  which  several  at 
least  pretended  to  have  witnessed  a  divine  revelation  and  insti- 
tution of  Ihis  worship,  and  celebrated  a  festival  of  Howera 
and  another  of  must,  accompanied  with  Bacchic  mummeries: 
and   thai    their    rites,  in    eonipliance    wiih    the   example,    and 


306  On  the  Mtic  Dumyiia. 

perhaps  at  the  instignlion  of  Delphi,  wero  adopted  into  the 
religion  of  the  state.  This  adoption  is  not  ascribed  to 
Theseus;  but  the  Oschophoria,  a  masquerading  procession 
with  bunches  of  grapes,  which  he  is  said  to  have  introduced, 
were  prol>ably  nothing  but  an  autumnal  festival,  adopted 
front  one  or  more  of  the  demes. 

That  llie  lX?lphic  oracle,  in  the  exercise  of  its  general 
sujwrintcndence  of  religious  concerns,  after  having  itself 
united  Bacchus  so  closely  as  it  did  with  its  Apollo,  because 
it  was  necessary  for  religious  establish  men  Is  of  so  national 
a  kind  to  meet  the  faith  of  all  classes,  by  the  association  of 
different  gods,  oracles,  and  ceremonies,  directed  the  cities  also 
to  worship  Bacchus,  is  not  aurjjrising.  With  regard  to 
Athens,  Ix-side  the  support  wliich,  as  rausaiiias  relates, 
Pegasus  received  from  Delphi,  the  oracle  cited  by  Demos- 
thenes (c.  Moidiam,  p.  531)  is  remarkable: 

Avow    l^ifttyOtictuau'^  oaoi    Wavctovoi  atrru 
vai'ere,  Kat  ■/raTf)ioi<n    vofAOt^  Idvvcff  eopra^^ 
/jLe/ivr/aOat    Itair^oiti,   Kat   vvptfj^opow  kot    ayvia^ 
UTTuvai   wpatan'    opofiiw   yaptv  a^xfiiya    Trairas, 
K€it  Krt(T(Tay  (iiofAOitrt^  Kapt}  fmi<pdvois  iruKatravTa^. 
The  words,  atmiya  wdtfTa^,  seem  not   to  hiive  been  used  acci- 
dentally   antl    unmeaningly,   but    to   recommend    the   amalga- 
mation  of    the    different  onlers.       That    there    was  at   least 
occasion  for  this  exhortation,  is  disclosed  by  the  legend  con- 
cerning  the  usogi*    that  prevailed  at  the  Anthcsteria  on    the 
day  of  the  Chocs,  of  drinking,  not  in  common  out  of  the  same 
liowl,  but  each  man  separatt'ly  out  of  his  own  cup.       Denjo- 
phoon,   who   here  stands   for   the    priest  of  the  united   people 
{dtrtxia   ^iiMOTtXiiy),    or    Pandion,    who    represents    the    union 
of  the    trilK'M   and    their    modes   of   worshij),  is  said  to    have 
introduced  this  regulation  for  the    national  banquet    (ct/cu^ia 
df}tioT£\^),  and  at  the  same  time  to  have  closed  the  temples, 
because  the  nmtricide  Orestes  Iiappened  just  at  this  time  to 
arrive  at  Athens,  and   it   was  the    kingV  object  to  avoid  ad- 
mitting him   to  a  share   in   the   drinking  bout   (o^cKr^roi^m), 
and  yet  not  to  offend  him  by  making  him   alone  drink  apart 
from  the  rest.     Ho  felt  the  motive,  as   Euripides  says  (Iphig. 
T.  <^<>0),  and  endured  the   mortification   in  silence.      Here,  aa 
the  fiction   is    palpable,    smd   even    cnrttradicts  chronology,   we 


On  the  Attic  Dionysia. 


307 


see  a  separation  between  the  worshippers,  for  which  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  account  on  any  other  ground  but  a  reluctance  in  a 
part  of  thoKe  who  met  at  the  festival  to  holding  entire  fellow- 
ship with  the  rest.  In  the  same  way  I  explain  the  custom 
of  keeping  silence  at  this  Orestcan  meal  duriug  the  eating 
and  drinking  (Plut.  Sympos.  ii.  10.  l).  It  is  however  very 
probable  that  Orestes  was  selected  for  the  purpose  of  the 
legend,  fur  the  sake  of  a  covert  allusion  to  the  real  motive, 
the  desire  of  the  higher  classes  to  keep  aloof  from  the  rustics 
{op€aTm)y  who  had  been  admitted  into  the  phratricH:  for 
this  same  mythical  Orestes  makes  hia  appearance  in  another 
legend,  where  the  allegorical  meaning  can  admit  of  no  doubt '^. 

C.  T. 


'*  The  author  aUutlcs  to  a  puuge  which  Stanley  in  his  Comnuntarjr  on  ttte  Gicck 

life  of  ^Bchjrliu  4uates  from  «d  old  Scholiast:  ivrtA^yfivvon'OptTrov  i^ui/txaXera 
wap'  'lUXijiri  (ifvftit,  u«  T^btTiif  i^eupt  TpayaitKtiv  fttXaioiax.  lie  observes,  p.  22h 
**  Bcatlcf  (Epistola  m1  Mill.  p.  -iri]  quotes  these  words  to  ridicule  them  as  a  clumsy 
fiction,  because  he  did  not  comprehend  them  as  n  ]X>etleal  one.  Orestes  here  a^oiu 
deiiKuatcn  the  old  tmien  aiid  the  runtk  mode  of  life,  at  in  the  /Etollsn  lci;cnd  ( llcca- 
tieua  in  Athen.  ii.  p.  Ii5.  Orcstheujt  ii  father  of  Owtiot,  father  uf  Oii'ri't,  nA»iP«U 
airJ  Ttoi"  «/iir  A  o-ti"),  and  as  in  the  Athmian  of  the  f!ho«R  :  Oco/itt  is  nothing  but  Aioftat, 
who  in  SicUy  paMed  for  the  inventor  of  the  hcrdsman'K  song  (UoutiaXiaafi^  Athen. 
XIV.  p.  em.)  and  who  in  Attica  wm  th«  fb>l  who  KlaLtf^hlcred  the  ox  at  the  Buphonia, 
and  ta  Icmicd  pricat  of  Jupiter  (Porphyt.  de  Abslin.  ii.  22.)" 


310  On  the  Painting  of  an  ancient   Vase. 

of  the  tutelary  goddess  indicates  that  the  scene  takes  place 
on  the  isle  of  Chrysc,  then  the  altar  represented  is  that  same 
altar :  one  of  the  most  cclohrated  in  antiquity,  which  the 
Greeks  were  bidden  hy  the  oracle  to  search  for  on  their  pas- 
sage to  Troy*  seventy-five  years  after  it  was  first  erected : 
which  Philoctetes  found  and  cleansed,  and  from  which  the 
snake  darte<l  out,  which  woundal  the  hero,  whose  long  and 
cruel  sufferings  and  glorious  triumph  were  exhibiteil  by  the 
three  masters  of  Greek  tragedy.  He  was  acquainted  with 
the  altar,  not  from  tlic  time  when  Jason  erected  it  on  his  way 
to  Colchis :  for  Philuctetes  was  not  one  uf  the  Argonauts, 
though  Hyginus  and  Valerius  Flaccus,  without  the  counte- 
nance of  any  other  author,  and  in  contradiction  to  al!  chro- 
nology, number  liini  among  them :  his  acquaintance  with  the 
altar  dated  from  the  expedition  of  Hercules  against  Troy, 
on  which  Philoctetes  had  accompanied  his  friend  and  foster- 
father.  The  painting  of  the  vase  enables  us  clearly  to  under- 
stand, how,  in  the  course  of  more  than  sixty  years,  an  altar 
piled  like  the  one  here  represented,  might  be  covered  up, 
and  overgrown  with  bushes,  so  that  nothing  but  a  lively 
recollection  of  the  spot  where  it  stood  could  lead  to  its  dis- 
covery ;  and  also  how  the  broad  chinks  and  cavities  leA  by 
stones  Bt>  roundwl  4>ff  and  laid  cm  one  another,  might  harbour 
a  snake,  which  might  dart  forth  and  wound  Philoctetes  as 
he  was  busied  in  clearing  out  the  altar. 

Altars  of  this  structure  are  the  most  ancient  of  any  : 
they  are  rarely  represented  on  ancient  monuments,  and  as 
rarely  are  they  accurately  described  by  ancient  writers.  It 
is  just  ^uch  an  altar  that  Apullonius  makes  the  Argunauts 
pile  up  with  stones  on  the  seashore,  before  they  embark,  in 
honour  of  Ajwllo,  as  the  patron  of  navigation'. 

Widely  different  therefore  from  the  original  is  the  strange 
representation  which  Dosiadas  gave  of  this  same  altar  in  long 

•  I.4D3.  'F.uteu  i'  Du  XdiyyaK  d\Av  vjf^tMv  Aj^kV^otrm  Ntjeaif  (ivtiJDj  fJw/idf 
iwdKTiov  'AvttXAotMN  'AkvIou,  'RfifiairlotA  V  &wte!nifunf.  The  word  Xuty^n,  here 
used  hy  ApoUontttn,  llM  misled  hU  leomeil  lulion  tnnslKtor  (L*Ar[;onftii(teii  di 
Ajwllonio  Rodio  trsdoitA  cd  illustrata,  Romn  I7yl-l|  to  suppose  the  nitar  roniposed 
oi  pi«truxM«i  but  Xat-y£  U  not  always  ukcd  as  the  diminutive  of  \uf.  Hesychiua 
txplatoB  \u1v7tT  by  \fttui  v-w^  u^amv  \c\*iuaft.ivou  and  Apollmiius  (it.  1678) 
dncribei  Talo«  a%  roUing  liafittav  Xdiyyav  to  tfuard  the  harbQur  from  the  Arfcooautt. 
In  the  former  paMiitie  ihercforc  he  prubablr  had  iii  his  mind  just  i^tich  an  altar  a^ 
that  rcptMemmi  in  ihe  imintini;. 


On  the  Puintiug  of  (in  ancient   Vatte. 

and  sliort  verses,  sit  arrangeil  as  to  cxliibit  ii  cippus  willi 
architectural  features  of  a  very  modern  style,  no  less  foreign 
to  the  noble  simplicity  of  ancient  tluics  in  its  figure,  than  the 
idea  and  character  of  the  poem  itself. 

The  altar  in  the  pointing  is  consecrated  to  a  goddess,  who 
is  set  up  near  it  on  a  fluted  Doric  pillar.  Statues,  vessels, 
and  groupes,  are  not  uncommonly  represented  in  ancient  mo- 
numents placed  on  single  isolated  pillars.  The  purpose  of 
elevating  an  object  of  veneration,  so  that  it  may  be  visible 
from  every  side,  seems  most  conveniently  attained  by  its 
position  on  a  pillar.  Such  pillars  grew  from  the  low  Doric 
to  the  height  of  the  columns  of  Trajan  and  M.  Aurelius. 

The  image  of  the  goddess,  like  the  altar,  boars  the  stamp 
of  high  antiquity  :  even  in  the  picture  it  seems  to  disclose 
the  material  of  which  it  was  formed,  and  presents  the  appear- 
ance of  a  venerable  ^oavov^,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word : 
a  figure  carved  in  woihI.  The  arms,  with  oj)eD  jwlnis,  are 
outstretched  as  in  the  act  of  benediction  or  prayer,  as  in 
tlie  images  of  the  Kphesiun  Diana :  unless  the  symbolical 
interpretation  was  annexed  in  later  times  to  this  attitude, 
whereas  in  fact  the  helplessness  of  art  in  its  earliest  stage 
could  devise  no  other  way  of  separating  the  arms  from  the 
vertical  body  in  the  rude  human  figure,  than  by  a  transverse 
beam*.  On  the  head  of  the  goddess  is  a  radiated  crown : 
she  is  clad  in  an  embroidered  tunic,  closely  fitted  to  tlie  body, 
with  sleeves,  girt  with  a  broad  zone  above  tlie  loins:  beside 
these  she  has  no  distinguishing  attribute. 

But  tlie  name  afHxed  in  the  picture  designates  her  as 
XPYSH.  The  artist  followed  the  legend,  according  to  which 
it  was  the  tutelary  goddess  of  the  ishf  of  Chryse  to  whom  the 
altar  was  dedicatetl  on  which  Hercules  sacrificed,  which  Phi- 
loctetes  discovered,  and  where  Chryse  herself  punished  his 
neglect  of  her  love,  by  the  bite  of  a  serpent  which  issued 
from  her  altar. 

The  island  itself,   which  bore   the  same  name   with   the 

'  So  the  celt^ratcd  i^tatfa  At  Sputa,  th«  uident  imafce*  ot  the  IHoscurl,  ven 
a  nide  rc|mniiriiii<iii  nf  iwq  hmtlicm  duping  each  »Uut  in  tlicir  amis.  The  vertical 
beams  represented  (he  boilieii,  the  two  traii»vw»e  hcaniJi  the  arms :  only  we  must  nW 
cmiccive  thai  one  of  these  was  above  and  the  other  below,  hiit  that  t>oth  were  carried 
thiough  the  upper  pait  of  the  hudie^,  at  a  email  distance  t'loni  each  other. 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  U  r 


ON   THE   PAINTING   OF   AN    ANCIENT  VASE, 


PROM    THK    OBBMAN    OF    VHDBN. 


The  vase,  the  painting  of  which  is  described  in  the  fol- 
lowing memoir,  was  found  in  Magna  Grnecia.  This  painting 
was  most  jirobably,  like  those  of  many  vases,  n  copy  from 
some  greater  work,  which,  in  the  style  of  the  composition  and 
the  figures,  reminds  one  of  the  paintings  of  Polygnotus  on 
the  vails  of  the  Lesche  at  Delphi,  described  by  Pausanias 
(x.  25—31.) :  as  in  them,  so  in  the  present  instance,  the  names 
are  annexed  to  the  figures'. 

And  for  this  we  owe  the  artist  many  thanks.  For  with- 
out these  names,  to  what  explanations  and  conjectures  would 
not  his  work  have  been  subject !  and  how  likely  would  they 
all  have  been  altogether  to  miss  its  real  meaning .'  so  destitute 
are  some  of  the  figures  of  all  attributes,  while  others  are  in- 
vested with  attributes,  entirely  different  from  those  usually 
attributed  to  them,  which,  though  perhaps  occasionally  men- 
tioned in  the  writings  of  the  ancients,  are  very  seldom,  and  in 
part  never  found  on  ancient  monuments.  Considered  merely 
in  this  respect  the  present  painting  is  extremely  valuable:  and 
it  is  rendered  still  more  interesting  by  its  subject.  For  it 
exhibits  one  of  the  most  ancient  stories  of  Hercules,  which, 
frequently  as  the  deeds  of  this  hero  were  the  subject  of  such 
works,  has  never  yet  appeared  in  any  monument  hitherto  dis- 
covered :  so  that  this  representation  is  new,  and  at  present 
perfectly  unique:  and  since  it  throws  new  light  on  one  of  the 
greatest  masterpieces  of  the  Attic  drama,  it  unquestionably 
deserves  peculiar  attention. 


'  The  ociftinal  of  thU  memoir  «rw  nmd  to  the  Academy  of  Berlin  in  Ni^vcmber 
1810.  It  wu  ftccoirpuiicd  with  a  eofy  of  the  priming,  which  la  engTS>e<1  in  the 
Tnnuctioru  of  the  AcaOtmy  :  biii  the  minutencM  uid  fidelity  of  the  dcBcription  will 
enable  fhe  reider  lo  dupenM  with  ihlK  illiiBtnttion.  It  \%  alio  jflven  by  AliUingrn 
Pnnitirtt  rfe«  I'im#*,  T.  61.   Tr. 


Oti  the  PairUing  of  an  ancient   Vase. 


309 


In  the  centre  of  the  painting  is  an  altar  constructed  of 
large  rough  stones  of  various  sizes,  one  of  the  largest,  of 
quadrangular  shape,  fcirming  the  basis,  and  a  similar  one  the 
upper  slab.  On  the  altar  a  flaiiie  is  blazing  before  the  statue 
of  a  female  deity,  here  named  XFY2U,  which  stands  on  a 
fluted  Doric  pillar.  On  the  right  of  the  goddess,  by  the  side 
of  the  altar,  is  standing  a  robust  man,  bearded,  naked  a%  to 
the  upper  part  of  his  body,  but  clothed  in  a  peplum  from 
his  loins  downward,  wearing  an  olive  garland,  and  holding 
his  left  hand  open  in  the  act  of  praying,  his  right  on  the 
head  of  a  victim,  a  bullock,  toward  which  his  face  is  turned. 
Over  this  figure  is  painted  the  name  HPAKi\H2.  By  the 
side  of  the  bullock  stands  a  V"ung  man  with  a  small  travelling- 
hat  on  his  head,  his  right  arm  wrapped  in  liis  chlamys,  and 
holding  two  upears  in  his  left  hand :  this  figure  is  named 
lOAl^QS.  Over  against  Hercules  on  the  left  side  of  the  altar 
stands  a  female  figure,  with  large  wings  on  her  shoulders 
spread  aloft,  clad  in  a  tunic  with  a  pepUim  thrown  over  it, 
holding  a  cup  in  her  right  hand,  and  in  the  left  a  large  patera, 
encircled  with  three  sprigs :  she  is  designated  by  the  name 
NIKA.  By  her  side  a  boy  is  stooping,  apparently  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  a  lid,  which  he  is  holding  in  Iwith  hands, 
on  a  fourcomcrcd  chest:  to  this  figure  no  name  is  annexed. 

The  painting  then  represents  a  sacrifice,  offered  to  a  god- 
dess Chryse  by  Hercules,  in  the  company  of  his  faithful 
lolaus,  and  of  a  boy,  and  in  the  presence  of  Nika,  who,  as 
will  be  shown  in  the  sequel,  probably  appears  at  this  sacrifice 
as  a  symbol. 

In  one  of  the  old  Scholia  to  the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles, 
V.  105,  it  is  distinctly  related,  that  Hercules  made  a  sacrifice 
on  the  island  of  Chryse,  when  he  marched  against  Troy. 
Philostratus  likewise  mentiuns  this  sacrifice,  though  not  so 
expressly^.  Hercules,  in  passing  over  to  Asia  with  his  fleet 
of  eighteen,  or,  as  Homer  has  it,  of  six  ships,  to  avenge  the 
perfidy  of  Laomedon,  landed  on  the  little  island  of  ('hryse, 
and  there  sacrificed  on  the  same  altar  which  Jason  had 
erected  during  the  Argonaulic  expedition.      Now  if  the  name 

*  ImaX.  Pliil.  Jua.  17-  la  fact  he  nitnllorui  no  sacrifice,  but  mly  the  altar  niaed 
bj  JaMm,  when  sailing  taCo1r.hiH.  But  he  iiuhjoins,  ihst  Philnrtetn  ahowH  rhe  Bliar 
to  th«  Orpek",  t«.  -rrit  £i-v  'UpaM\fi  ^>-i]^t)«.     Tr. 


^ 


busy  with  the  chest  whidi  appears  to  be  intended  for  the  safe 
keeping  of  the  ovXo)(yTat  and  the  implements  pertaining 
to  the  sacrifice,  is  probably  no  other  than  Philoctetes  himself, 
who,  at  the  time  of  the  expedition  of  Hercules  against  Troy, 
was  about  the  age  of  the  boy  here  represented,  and  who 
from  his  childliood  accompanied  tlie  hero  as  his  ministering 
attendant,  just  as  he  appears  in  the  painting  (Thilostr.  JuD. 
Im.  17). 

The  little  bush  of  sprigs  with  pointed  leaves,  ]>crhap5 
of  laurt'l,  which  is  just  indicated  alxjve  the  boy's  head,  marks 
the  place  of  the  sacrifice,  tlie  UKa)<v<p^  <TrjK6vt  an  Sophocles  calls 
the  roofless  inclosure  within  which  tlie  altar  of  Chryse  sttwd 
(Phil,  iriys). 

The  vase  which  contains  this  remarkable  painting  has 
the  shape  of  an  inverted  bell,  resting  on  one  foot,  with  a  han- 
dle projecting  from  each  side.  It  is  what  the  Greeks  would 
have  called  a  Kpanjii.  The  figures  are  painted  red,  on  a 
black  ground;  the  names,  as  well  as  some  of  the  ornaments 
above  described,  white.  The  drawing  is  careless,  jiarticu- 
larly  in  the  hands  and  feet.  The  vase,  at  the  time  when 
the  painting  was  copied,  belonged  to  a  private  person  at 
Naples*. 

*  [Th«  subject  of  tliU  Memoir  hoa  been  duicuued  b«h  b;  tlie  eommeii' 
tatorn  on  the  PhiLortctes  of  i^ophocIM,  and  b;  Uissen  In  Uocckh's  cJUion  of 
Pindar,  Explic.  p.  51 1.  where  he  commimicatCA  Welcker'a  view  of  ('hrysie,  ilk  nei- 
ther a  iiyuijih  nor  Mincrvu,  but  th«  wicient  )^dde»x  Thin,  whom  Pindar  invokes 
in  hla  fourth  isthniiui  citi  Mdrtp  'A\hv,  iroXvmuu/tt  ii*la  aio  y'  «kuti  kjiI 
fityaa^tyn  t/ofitaau  y-fiuaiv  dfOfmroi  mpuiviov  SWiov,  uid  who  is  na  Other  than 
di«  Lcinnian  fjoddesfi  to  whom  human  rictimx  wcic  Bacrilicedl.  (Stcph.  Ityz.  AiT^vac). 
Welckcr  finds  a  coniinnatinn  of  thin  optaion  in  the  ph)'*>foft;nniiif  of  the  ^^de5s 
rqweaeined  on  the  vaw,  Ocidorum  ffror.Uat  rUam  m/nijicat  immantit  tuulias  ctipi- 
enttrm,  tfuale*  ei  vutrntur  o/ina  ofilata.  liui  It  ia  difficult  to  decide,  whether  what  is 
hero  dombed  an  ferocity,  \»  any  thing  more  than  the  want  ofanjr  poailivu  exprewion, 
which  Tnarkii  a  rude  cH-viy  of  early  art.  Kiickert  Dtenat  der  Athena  p.  ttj.  cxphttna 
the  epithet  X^^tri  applied  to  Minerva,  i>oni  the  t;olden  ]»anoply  with  which  she  leaped 
frotu  the  head  of  Jove :  so  the  cborUK  in  the  CKd.  T.  invokes  her  as  xp^'vca  Buya-rip 
Aia«:  to  she  was  represented  in  the  Parthenon.) 

C.  T. 


ON  CERTAIN  AFFIRMATIVE  AND  NEGATIVE 
PARTICLES  OF  THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE. 


OxE  of  the  characteristics  of  Hornc  Tooke's  Diversions 
of  Purley  is  the  extreme  confidence  with  wliich  he  pronounce« 
his  opinion  even  when  its  grounds  are  at  least  very  doubt- 
ful, and  the  arrogant  manner  in  which  he  distributes  his 
scorn  on  all  who  have  differed,  or  may  hereafter  differ,  from 
himself.  In  the  case  of  Samuel  Johnson  indeed,  there  are 
su  many  instances  in  which  he  merited  chastisement,  that  we 
do  not  feel  very  indignant  at  his  getting  a  lash  or  two  more 
than  the  specific  charge  warrnnts.  We  arc  disposed  its  a 
jury  sometimes  is,  to  find  him  guilty  on  the  ground  of  ge- 
neral character  rather  than  of  the  evidence  before  us.  There 
is  one  unimportant  case  in  which  Home  Tookc  has  parti- 
cularly shown  this  rashness,  and  has  gone  out  of  his  way 
to  pronounce  that  **  ridiculous''^  which  he  could  have  had 
no  means  of  judging.  I  allude  to  the  place  where  he  says, 
'*  But  I  believe  they  will  be  as  little  able  to  justify  their 
innovation,  as  Sir  Thomas  Mure  would  have  been  to  explain 
the  foundation  of  his  ridiculous  distinction  between  nay  and 
nOf  and  between  yea  and  j/e«'."  In  the  note  he  quotes  the 
following  passage — a  passage  far  more  remarkable  as  illus- 
trating how  the  print-iples  of  abstract  toleration  will  desert 
the  I>cst  and  wisest  when  the  opinions  they  dislike  become 
embodied  and  attached  to  the  person  of  an  individual  oppo- 
nent, than  in  any  philological  view. 

"  I  woulde  not  here  note  by  the  way  that  Tyndall  here 
translatcth  no  for  jtay,  for  it  is  but  a  trifle  and  mistaking  of 
tlic  Englishc  worde :  saving  that  ye  shouldc  see  that  he  whych 
in  two  so  plain  Englishc  wordcs,  and  so  oouimon  as  in  iwye 

>  Div.  of  Purley..  ii.  |i.  4M. 


On  certain  Affirmative  and  Negative 


and  no,  can  not  tell  when  he  should  take  the  one  and  when 
the  totber,  is  not  for  translating  into  KngUshc  a  man  very 
mete.  For  the  use  of  those  two  wordes  in  auiiswering  a 
question  is  this.  No  aunswereth  the  question  framed  by  the 
afRrmalii'e*.  As  for  ensample  if  a  manne  should  a&ke  Tindall 
himsclfc  :  ys  an  heretike  mete  to  translate  Holy  Scripture  into 
Englishe  ?  lo  to  thys  question  if  he  will  aunswere  trew  Knglishe, 
he  must  aunswere  nay  and  not  »o.  But  and  if  the  cjue«ition 
be  asked  hym  thus  lo :  Is  not  an  heretyke  mete  to  translate 
Holy  Scripture  into  English  ?  To  this  question  if  he  will 
nunswerc  true  English,  he  must  aunswere  no  and  not  nat/. 
And  a  lykc  difference  is  there  betwene  these  two  adverbs  ye 
and  yes.  For  if  the  question  bee  frametl  unto  Tindall  by  the 
affirmative  in  tbys  fashion.  If  an  heretique  falsely  translate 
the  Newe  Testament  into  Englishe,  to  make  his  false  heresyes 
seem  the  word  of  Godde,  be  his  bookes  worthy  to  be  buruett  ? 
To  this  questyon  asked  in  this  wyse,  yf  he  will  aunswere 
true  Englishe,  he  must  auswere  ye  and  not  yes.  But  nowe 
if  the  question  be  asked  him  thus  lo,  by  the  negative.  If 
an  herctike  falsely  translate  the  Ncwe  Testament  into  Englishe 
lo  maki?  his  false  heresyes  seme  the  word  of  God,  he  not  hys 
1)okefl  well  worthy  to  be  burned  ?  To  thys  question  in  thys 
fashion  framed  if  he  will  aunswere  trew  Englishe  he  may  not 
aunswere  ye  but  he  must  aunswere  yea^  and  say  yes  marry 
be  they,  bothc  the  translation  and  the  translatour,  and  al  that 
wyll  hold  wyth  tliem.** 

It  seems  highly  improbable  that  Sir  Thomas  More 
would  have  stated  the  existence  of  such  a  distinction,  es|}e- 
cially  in  attacking  an  adversary,  unless  it  either  was  observed 
in  pnicticc,  or  sanctioned  by  the  opinion  of  well  informed 
perwius  of  his  own  day.  So  few  questions  are  answered  by 
simple  yes  or  «o,  and  so  few  of  sucli  questions  occur  in 
works  of  any  kind  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  before 
this  time,  that  I  know  not  how  we  can  determine  such  a 
minute  point  of  usage.  I  cannot  find  that  Tyndal  notices 
so  trifling  a  thing  in  his  answer  to  More,  though  the  pas- 
sage may  easily  have  escaped  me ;  but  at  any  rate  it  appeared 

*  It  kppcim  to  inc  MTOf^ing  to  the  iruiancc  nail  ihc  use  of  tlu  won)  afrinuatlTC  » 
I^Ew  lines  tower  down  thai  .Sir  ThomM  Aloorc  meant  naif  ^ve  and  not  no. 


\ 


Particles  of  the  English   Language. 

to  mc  not  uninteresting  to  examine  wlietlier  there  was  any 
tliflercnce  in  the  origin  of  the  words  themselves  which  niigltt 
lead  to  their  different  application,  for  few  such  usages  are 
owing  entirely  to  accident.  I  was  thus  led  to  look  at  Rask's 
Grammar,  and  from  Kask  to  turn  to  Grimm's  third  volume, 
in  the  few  last  pages  of  which  the  subject  of  questions  and 
their  answers  is  discussed  with  his  usual  learning.  So  much 
it  seems  necessary  to  state,  more  as  a  sort  of  apology  for 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  by  explaining  how  I  was  led  to  it, 
than  with  the  intention  of  confining  my  remarks  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages  to  the  point  which  first  provoked  my  curiosity, 
or  labouring  to  preserve  the  unity  of  subject,  when  anything 
of  interest  may  suggest  it&elf.  IMy  intention  is  to  lay  before 
the  English  reader  some  small  part  of  what  is  stated  by 
Grimm  on  the  subject  of  interrogative  particles  and  their 
answers,  begging  him  to  remember  that  all  that  is  valuable, 
he  owes  to  the  learned  and  laborious  German. 

Grimm'  divides  questions  into  subjective  and  objective: 
in  the  former  it  is  the  copula,  in  the  latter  the  subject  or 
predicate  which  we  ask  about.  The  subjective  has  reference 
to  the  knowledge  or  opinion  of  the  person  addressed,  the 
objective  to  the  nature  of  that  of  wliich  we  are  speaking. 
Thus,  "have  you  seen  the  man?"*  (or  not')  "is  he  there?" 
(or  not)  are  subjective  and  admit  in  modem  English  of  only 
one  of  two  answers,  yes  or  no ;  whereas  in  the  following, 
**  where  have  you  been  ?  who  has  done  that  .'"*  it  is  to  sup- 
ply the  subject  or  predicate,  or  something  which  modifies 
tliem  that  we  put  the  question,  and  the  answer  may  of  cotirse 
be  anything. 

The  objective  interrogative  is  a  sort  of  indefinite  relative 
of  which  we  arc  looking  (if  we  may  so  speak)  for  the  antece- 
dent, and  in  the  Sanscrit  and  all  its  kindred  European  tongues 
the  root  of  its  variously  modified  forms  is  A"",  QV,  or  HV. 
The  Teutonic  A  constantly  represents  the  Greek  and  Latin  k ; 
thus  we  find  Kap^Ut  ^3  cor ;  Gothic,  hairto ;  KoKano^,  calamus  ; 

*  III.  7A1. 

*  Hence  proliibly  the  Sclnvonian  iaterrogaOvc  putide,  /i  m  »  suffix,  idcDtical  with 
iti  "oT.'*    firiiiiiii  tii.  7(JS. 

*  Grlnmi,  111.  3.  752.    Vamx*ie  Ihrc  de  orifcuubas  Ling,  Lu.  et  Gtmc.  with  hia 
fngmcnM  omphJIu.     Uptal,  \7S3,  y.  51. 

*  Grimm,  1.  &87, 


31B  On  eertaht  AfirmaUve  and  Xegative 

Gothic,  halam^  halm.  This  k  romained  in  tlieiio  intcrrogalives 
in  the  Ionic  dialect,  but  in  coiniiion  Greek  tliey  couiiiienced 
with  TTt  which  stood  in  Oscud  also  where  the  Latin  had  qu. 
All  tliat  i3  necessary  to  illustrate  this  analogy  is  lo  be  found 
in  Miillcr's  Etruscans,  Vol.  i.  p.  30".  The  interchange  of 
these  sounds,  though  apparently  not  very  easy,  meets  us  else- 
where. The  Carih  tribes  have  corrupted  the  Spanish  pol- 
vora  into  cohora^ :  and  Scott*  tells  us  that  *^  pa  dii  liu"  would 
be  the  Brst  efforts  of  a  Scotch  child  to  ask  "  Where''s  David 
Lindsay  ?"  The  labial  p  in  this  case  standing  for  the  gut- 
tural 7«A,  whicli  the  Northern  dialect  used  instead  of  our  wh. 
A  more  complete  case  of  aualogy  is  found  in  the  Celtic  lan- 
guages^'^: where  the  Cymric  branch  retains  p,  the  Gaelic  hasc  ; 
thus  the  Bas  Breton  gives  pevar  and  the  AVclsh  pedwar^ 
answering  to  the  i^olian  weacvpe^  and  the  Oscan  peiora ", 
forfoury  whilst  tlie  Erse  has  keitkar  or  keithrOy  corres[>onding 
to  the  Latin  quatuor ;  and  this,  I  believe,  runs  also  through 
the  whole  class  of  interrogative  and  indefinite  pronouns.  In 
the  Latin  w/er,  whicli  answers  to  the  Gotliic  huathary  the 
aspirate  has  been  dropped  and  the  first  syllable  contracted 
into  a  single  vowel.  Dacier'^  has  well  remarked  that  piam 
in  nujfpiam  and  qjtutpiam  stand  for  qxiam  in  quisquam  and 
nusquanty  just  us  the  Oscan  pUpU  of  Festus  does  for  quidquid. 
Miiller  observes  that  the  Greek  relative  of  must  Imve  lost 
its  rough  guttural  sound  very  early". 

In  subjective  questions  tlie  Gothic  used  a  sufHx  jt  in 
translating  passages  in  which,  in  the  Greek,  the  form  of 
expression  was  the  same  as  the  mere  afHnnation;  as  akuldu 
ist  kaisaragild  giban  kaisara?  tl^^an  k^vsov  Ka'i<rapt  ^ovvai^* ; 
In  questions  put  negatively  they  used  niu,  a  compound  of 
ni  and  the  u,  answering  exactly  to  the  Latin  nomie.     These 

^  There  Ls  no  need  of  dwelling  an  ■  poLni  m  itcncrally  knovm.  The  reader  may 
compare  Oriiinn,  in.  p.  1.  Mullcr  Durinnx,  ii.  App.  viii.  [i.  AlCS.  Niebuhr,  VoL  i. 
For  an  oapiralcil  form,  ipi'u  nee  Buttminn's  Lexiiogua,  [.  p.  2IW. 

•  Watertim's  Wanrferingx,  p,  73. 

•  Nttica  to  Alarmionj  canto  iv.  now  4. 

'0  MiiUer  Kcruiker,  p.  »2.  Urimm,  m.  2.  now.  Lluhyd'*  Archvologia  Btiian. 
pp.  134.  \%h. 

"  F«iiM  in  V.  petorkum.  "  Ad  FcMum.  in  v.  quUpiun. 

I'  Emiaker.  t.  31.  now.    rirlmm,  iii.  p.  8S,  note. 
>*  Orimm,  iii.  763. 


Partichs  of  Ike  Ei}glinh  Lnngnngi^.  319 


two  modes  of  expressing  the  interrogative  arc  wanting  in  thfi 
other  Teutonic  dialects. 

Notker  ",  in  his  Psalms,  and  he  alone,  uses  na  to  express 
a  question^  appended  generally,  though  not  always,  to  the 
end  of  the  sentence,  and  oidy  when  a  negative  particle  has 
preceded.  It  thus  answers  very  nearly  to  the  Latia  ne  in 
nonne  and  the  Gothic  n  in  niu :  for  example,  ne  hist  tu  der 
na  ?  e»ne  iUe  ? 

The  Gothic  an  heads  the  sentence  an  hua  tanjaima  f 
Ti  ovif  trotriaofjLev ;  Luke  III.  10.  Jn  huas  Grimm  considers 
as  equivalent  to  Kal  rU,  and  thinks  that  the  6rst  of  these 
words  gives  an  emphasis  to  the  question,  just  as  ec  in  ecquid, 
which  probably  is  formed  by  assimilation  to  llie  following 
consonant,  from  et-qn'uL  The  only  case  in  whicli  he  quotes 
it  in  a  subjective  question  is  anntih  Thiudans  is  Thu?  ot/«ovf 
paaiXeu^  €t  au  i  Luke  xviii.  :i'.  The  Old  High  German 
particle  answering  to  tlie  Gothic  anniik  is  rHnil,  inu^  i-'not  or 
vnth  a  sort  of  reduplication,  iftinii.  It  sometimes  expresses 
num  and  sometimes  nonne^  and  is  principally  used  by  Notker 
in  affirmative  questions,  7ia  in  negative;  the  former  heads 
the  sentence,  the  latter  mostly  closes  it. 

I  have  thus  ventured  to  try  the  patience  of  the  reader 
by  mentioning  the  principal  forms  of  tlie  old  Teutonic  inter- 
rogatives  given  by  Grimm,  without  however  entering  into 
the  detail  or  citing  the  examples  which  are  to  l>e  found  in  his 
Grammar.  He  considers  the  simple  an  as  a  transposition  of 
no,  and  identical  witti  the  Latin  an,  and  suggests  in  a  note 
the  possibility  of  a  relationship  to  the  Greek  particle  av :  a 
8upiH>siticm  which  does  not  seem  improbable,  when  we  con- 
aider  the  natural  connection  of  the  duties  which  both  perform, 
and  the  application  of  such  words  as  Triuy,  Trure,  k.  t.  X.  in 
au   indefinite  and   interrogative  sense. 

The  result  is  that  there  are  three  forms  of  the  simple 
interrogative  particle '^  Ist,  The  Gothic  «,  related  probably 
to  the  Greek  ov ;  2d,  the  Gothic  nri,  Ohl  High  German  n«, 
Sanscrit  n«,  Latin  ne,  Greek  /irj,  Old  High  German  na  i  S<1, 
the  Gothic  on,  Old   High  German  in,  Latin  an^  Greek  ov*-. 

"  Notker  wm  a  monk  of  S(  (IaII,  who  dktl  WH.  and  wa«  d luting Uticd  hwQ  two 
iHhCTtt  of  the  Mine  namr  h^  (he  epithet  of  Lahpo.  Hit  P«aliii<>  wrtr  published  ia 
Schiller,  Vol.  i.  "■  I'.  ',i\o. 

Vol.  IL  No,  5.  Ss 


38*iy  On  rerfain   Afflrtnaiire  and  Negniirc 

It  is  remarkalile  that  all  these  arc  connpcted  with  the 
negative  and,  in  the  languages  we  arc  familiar  with,  with  the 
I  Inferential  particles ;  as  well  as  in  some  cases  with  the  a^lverbs 
I  of  tin»c  ".  The  feeling  which  produced  the  relationship  with 
the  first  is  probably  tlie  wish  to  suggest  what  one  does  not 
believe  to  be  the  case  as  the  point  to  be  examined,  and  thus 
dare  a  denial.  When  I  say.  Is  it  not  soP  I  call  upon  the 
person  addressed  to  deny  my  opinion,  if  he  can,  putting  the 
nt^tive  pointedly  before  him.  Perhaps  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  remark  a  case,  not  mentioned  by  Grimm,  of  the  con- 
nection ill  Greek  between  the  words  wliich  ask  a  question 
and  denote  an  inference,  I  mean  that  of  apa  and  opa;  take 
for  instance  the  following  Line  of  the  Alcestis: 

apa  Toi'  ^(vov 
arvyta  oiKaltai  iv  kwcoh  a<piyfi€vov\ 
if  we  write  it  in  the  usual  way,  interrogatively,  and  translate 
apa  **  nonnc,"  the  sense  will  be  the  same  as  if  we  omit  the 
question,  and  understand  it  as  strongly  affirmative.  Hence 
H  is,  I  conceive,  that  Porson  savs  in  his  Pra?f.  ad  Ilecub. 
p.  3c,  "in  hisce  interrogandi  formuHs  ncganlem  particulam 
pro  arbitrio  addunt  vel  omittunt  Tragici.*"  Not  that  it  waa 
originally  imninterial  whether  the  negative  was  inserted  or 
not,  but  that  to  ask  a  <pjcstion  negatively  is  e^iuivalent  to 
an  assertion.  The  case  was  originally  parallel  to  that  of 
ovKovv  and  ovkovv\  " apud  vcteres  Atticos  utraque  par- 
ticula  semper  propriam  suam  significationem  Kervat.  Ego 
iibique  owe  ovv  scribo,  adh'\bUn,  prout  opjig  ettt.,  ee/  rnnUaa 
inierrogationc  '".  So  thut  perhaps  the  passage  in  the  (Edipus 
Tyranniis  might  he  |K)inted  thus, 

ap  td}w  KOKo^' 
up   oijyi  irat  avayuo^  ; 
The  first  clause  asserting  directly,  the  second  interrogatively. 
When  therefore  we  are  told  '*  to  translate  apa  by  "  nonne," 
it  might  not  have  been  amiss  to  have  accounted  for  this  op- 


'">  Compare  nam,  oSi',  /iij»>,  num,  ntin?,  nun,  vvy,  ksA  ih«  uuge  of -rorr  »nd  tandent 
it)  quMtioDk. 

'•  Elmolejr  ad  Uerhclii.  2-Vk 

'■  Monk  ftd  Akcsu  3.M.  cf.    Hermann  id  Vtf.  393.  395.     Ponon  b»d  fonamXj 
roTTCCl^d  the  line  quoted  above, 

ap'  (»«  Tilt  l^iwof,  K.  T.  \.     AdrenvlA,  2^3. 


i 


Partickif  of  the  EngiiMh  Langttage.  891 

parent  indifference  of  the  absence  or  presence  of  oi/.  Thai 
the  accent  does  not  necessarily  vary  according  to  the  inter- 
rogative or  inferential  seuHe  has  been  already  remarked  by 
Hermann  on  Aribtopban.  Nubes.  1305.  **  Krr&nt  qui  parti- 
culam  apa  nonuist  in  tntcrrogntionibus  circumflccti  voUmt, 
qiium  ftccentuum  ratio  ubiquc  apa  scribi  postulat  ubi  prima 
longa  e8t%  ctiamsi  intcrrogatio  nulla  sit.  Ita  contra  sa:-pe 
apoy  prima  brevi,  quod  ru:^piitt  circumilexuni  in  interroga- 
tionibus  e&t^'."'  Dindorf  has  accortUugly  printed  tbc  line 
vitbout  a  quefitioD : 

4>«o'7ns- ;  e^Wov  <r  apa  Kwi^cretv  eyto. 
After  the  simple  interrogative  jiarliclcs  of  llie  old  Teu- 
tonic dialectsj  wbic)i  are  mentioned  above,  and  whicli  arc 
extinct  in  the  modern  German,  Grimm  notices  eome  of  a 
more  complicated  form.  Of  these  I  shall  only  remark  the 
**ist  win?"  for  "num"  or  *' numquid"  of  the  old  German 
glosfien,  and  the  Northern  mun.  The  former  lie  considers  to 
be  derived  from  wan  opinio  not  wan  defectus,  and  the  latter 
is  the  third  singular  of  the  auxiliary  rnujia,  /teXXeiu.  Its 
derivatives,  mottn  in  Swedish  and  m(m  in  Danish,  are  the 
only  remains  of  that  verb  in  those  languages^.  Uoth  these 
interrogative  foruis  are  grimnded  on  the  connection  between 
intention  and  futuritv  ;  at  least  if  muna  be  related  to  the 
Gothic  munan  and  the  German  ineiitett.  There  is  also  in 
Icelandic  a  verb,  mnn,  recordor*^.  The  sajjic  relationship 
may  perhaps  account  for  the  nearness  of  the  forms  fu'Xrt 
and  yucAXw.  But  Grimm's  observation,  that  the  resemblance 
of  tliis  Northern  iunn  to  the  Greek  ttwv  *'  {m]  ai/v)  is  merely 
accidental,  is  such  a  warning  to  ignorant  amt  rash  etymolo- 
gists as  to  check  me  from  yielding  to  Uic  temptation  of  entering 

■■  This  u  •  |»nllel  cue  to  the  ch«i)t«of  accent  io  n>ui*  and  v^iw.  See  Fort.  Pncf. 
ul  llec  xxxr.     KbnflLc;  Prsf.  ul  <E<1.  Tyr.  x. 

•'  e.  f{.     o(JTs«  a^',  av  xoi,  TuCrd  irui  itioyftt»a  ;     (Ed.  Col.  1433. 

**  It  U  Miofculu  ciioufth  that  the  c()iiivalent  tiertnao  auxiliary  nrgrdm  im  {irescsved 
Engiith  oatj  ill  true  olnulcte  phrsw — "  Woe  wonh  the  day."  I  hare  doubud  wheUiir 
troff  were  here  a  Bubstaniivc  or  an  ailjective,  a»  in  the  Childc  of  KUe,  and  elsewhere : 

"  And  aye  her  hc«rt  wm  «■«•." 
Hut  the  analotcyof  the  phraw  '^  woe  i«  thee,"  attd  **  well  is  thee,"  (tnthc  I*talnM)seem* 
Io  ahow  that  it  is  a  aubitantive. 

»  Uriraai,  i.  p.  ^IW  Jllckv'*  Theuunia,  ij,  (U.  w)m>  roiMcivef  the  Nonhcia 
phrwe,  "  1  niH«  do  it,"  to  be  a  relic  of  ihi>  verb.     Vol.  t.  p.  R7>  (^) 

*■  Etym.  Mai^num.  p.  6(M,  f,  S3, 


322  *t^  ^certain  Affirmative  and  KegaHve 

more   fully  into   the    possible   connection   of  this  root   witli 
other  Greek  verbs-*. 

A  subjeclive  question  may  be  answered  in  the  affirmative 
by  repeating  the  word  on  which  the  stress  was  laid  in  the 
question,  or  by  an  affirmative  particle,  or  by  uniting  the 
two.  The  first  of  these  methods  is  the  most  usual  in  Latin, 
which  possesses  no  negative  or  affirmative  particles,  properly 
eo  called,  as  answers. 

Scin""  me  tuum  esse  herum  Amphitruonem  ?  scio. 

Plaut.  Amph.  v.  1.  SO. 
Egone  istuc  dixi  ?   Tute  istic  (iatuc.  Afeursius). 

Amph.  II.  2.  lis. 
As  these  questions  have  reference  to  the  decision  of  the 
person  addressed  airi'  is  often  prefixed,  and  then  the  answer 
will  1m:  by  repeating  the  first  perg<jn  aw.  But  in  one  or  two 
cases  the  usage  of  ita  and  non  by  themselves  approaches  very 
nearly  to  that  of  independent  affirmative  and  negative  particles. 
Thus  in  tlie  Eunuch  of  Terence,  iv.  4.  99, 

Dor.  Venit  Chjerea. 

Ph<Ed.  Fraterne?     Dor.  Ita.     Phcsd,  Quando.>  &e. 
/)w.  De  istac  rogas 

Virgine?     Pyih.  Ita.  iv.  4.  54- 

Vidistin""  frairem  Chseream  ?     Dor.  Non.  iv.  4.  46. 

JEschinuJi.  Nonne  hiec  justa  tibi  videntur  postea  ? 

Mifio.   Nor.    Adelph.   iv.  v.  27. 

Still  the  Latin  language  does  not  seem  to  have  possessed 
any  particles  like  our  yest  appropriated  to  the  answer  of  sub- 
jective questions,  and  necessarily  \mconnected  with  any  words 
following  them.  They  seem  to  have  used  i7ff,  tmmo,  non, 
minime  elliptically,  by  which  I  merely  understand  that  they 
could  have  been  connected  witli  and  formed  part  of  a  regu- 
larly constructed  sentence,  and  they  only  answer  the  purpose 
of  negatives  and  affirmatives  by  supplying  the  place  of  what 
might  have  accompanied  ihcm.  Thus  in  the  above  cases  of 
i7a,  the  answer  might  have  been  "ita  est,"  "ita  rogo;"  and 
again,  "  non  vidi"  and  '^  non  videntur :""  whereas  such  words 

*'  I  only  mmdon  ilie  iuteichanfte  of  X  ud  w  In  the  CnXMn  peWio*-  for  piXrtoy,  MnA 
the  Sicilian  ^v6ok  for  tj^^o**,  rftiirraTot  fat  ^iXTa-rot  (M«U«'»  Dorians,  ll.  Append, 
viii.  p.  dU-l),  conaidercd  with  m»M«r,  ftivttv,  n*'\fL,  /nWaiy  neinen,  niffij,  &c.  !•  it 
'pouible  Oini  the  originHl  Mca  shouM  h»vc  been  th»(  of  Mnktttg  vh^ul  a  thing  f 


^ 


Particles  of  the  English  JMnguage.  323 

as  yea  or  no  are  incapacitated  from  forming  part  of  any  phrase, 
and  are  equally  strong  when  unaccompanied.  In  Greek,  val 
and  oil  stand  by  tht»mselves  as  answers,  but  the  same  remark 
will  apply  Co  this  latter  particle  as  to  ita  and  noii :  vat  is  the 
Latin  ««*,  and,  as  Grimm  observes,  seems,  singularly  enough, 
allied  to  the  negative.  He  purposely  avoids  entering  upon 
the  subject  of  tiiis  connection.  May  it  not  have  arisen  from 
the  use  of  the  negative,  like  our  **  nay,*"  I'mmrt,  or  nnzi  (nnte)y 
in  Italian?  which  are  negative,  inasmuch  as  thev  object  to 
the  preceding  phrase  as  not  being  strong  enough,  whilst  they 
agree  with  its  general  meaning  and  enhance  its  force  ?  Cer- 
tainly in  these  cases  the  negative  and  aflirmativc  senses  often 
np]>roach  very  near  to  one  another,  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
following  passage  of  B.  Jonson  :  "  A  good  man  always  profits 
by  his  endeavour,  yea,  when  absent ;  naif,  when  dead,  by 
his  example  and  memory." 

The  affirmative  particle  is  in  the  Gothic  jai,  sometimes 
ya**.  Old  High  German  jd*^.  Anglo-Saxon  fji'a,  Knglish 
yea;  and  from  the  junction  of  this  with  si  (nit)  sprung 
the  Anglo-Saxon  gese  and  our  yea,  to  which  in  Saxon  there 
•was  a  corresponding  negative  neae.  The  third  way  of  an- 
swering a  question  by  the  union  of  a  particle  with  some  word 
on  which  an  emphasis  is  placed,  shows  itself,  when  ja  and 
ne  are  joined  with  the  jwrsonal  pronouns: — Thus,  Ja  ich — > 
ja  du — ja  CTf  were  used ;  and  the  answer  in  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  version  given  by  John  to  those  who  asked  liim,  "  Art 
thou  that  prophet,"  is  **niV.""  It  is  on  this  usage  that 
Grimm  grounds  liis  conjectures  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
French  affirmatives.  Besides  si  from  »ic  or  ai7,  it  is  known 
to  everybody    that   the  French    language   possessed    the  two 

**  Thix  pferticle  ja  ix  «n  elemnnt  kIso  of  the  Gothic  copuU  jdA.  Orimm  (til.  370) 
ttmsidcr  the  h  to  cone  from  Au  equivalent  to  the  I^tin  tjue ,-  we  hkre  seen  abore  that 
uialoto'  warrants  this  cIianKC  of  Icttcn,  ami  it  ia  further  licnie  out  by  luaft^  tie,  and 
AwuuA,  tfiiiiKfitr,  Ke,  I  (.'annot  acquincc  in  the  notion  of  the  Latin  et  and  the  (ireek 
T»  being  a  mere  c**e  of  transposition,  not  so  much  on  account  of  ihe  different  potition 
thef  hold  in  a  Kenteocc  an  a  leading  wend  and  an  enclitic,  (at  lea»t  if  we  admit  tbc  view 
of  an  and  fin  above),  but  becauKe  J  consider  that  t«  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  f  ur, 
that  Ti«  dnestOf/MJjt,  and  nVd-n^^c,  to  t/uatuor.  The  Oscan  /w>  complete*  this  analogy, 
and  in  the  aame  way,  -wnTr  and  »tc  beeome  troKa  and  u*rt  in  Uoitc,  (.MixUer,  Etmaker, 
)i.  3U,  31,  note)  unless  indeed  he  cani>ldcni  all  of  thcac  fnnna  a«  originally  identical, 
and  that  usage  made  et  and  khi  the  leading,  ijnr  and  n  itic  enclitic  coi>ulai. 

"  >'a  ia  UKd  by  Barbviir.    See  JamieMn  In  v. 


On  certain  Affirmative  and  Negatv^ 


aifirniative  particles  which  characlerieed  tlieir  respective  dia- 
lects, and    served   as   landmarks  of    the    provinces    in    vhich 
tbey   prevaileil — oil — and  oc.      From  vit^    that  belonging  tp 
the  North  of  France,   came  the  niotleru  X'rench  oui  hy  drop- 
ping the  / ;  as  at  the  present  day  they  constantly  pronounce 
Neuilly,    Neuiy^    the  I  being  hardly   perceptible ;  and  as  in 
Italian,  it  was  after  a  consonant  supplanted  by   the  vowel  t. 
Le    Duchat   in  liis  notes  to    Menage^    has  justly   remarked 
that    this   fact   of  its    having    been   oil   overthrows   the  Ety- 
mology  of  *'  hoc  fs/,"    which  his  author  maintains  to  be  the 
true  one.      At   the  same  time   be   suggests  one   rather  more 
improbable,    *'Aoc  illud"^ !     Home  Tooke'a  adoption   of  the 
derivation    from  otii,    the  part  participle  of  tmir,    is  a   good 
specimen   of  the  practice  of   ftlting  etymologies  on   to  words 
as  they  exist  at  present,  without  taking  the  trouble  of  search- 
ing  into  their  history.     Thia  becomes  valueless  the  moment 
one  recurs  to  the  earlier  form  oil.     Grimm,  whilst   he  does 
not  consider  the  conjecture  sntisfactory,  suggests  that  oil  may 
be  a  modificatifm  of  the  particle  j<i  joined  witli  the  pronoun 
of   the   third    person,    like    tlie    German  Ja   er,    nnd  oc    the 
same  particle  with  the  first  person  ic,  equivalent  to  ja  ich. 
The  analogy  of  netiil  is  strongly  in  favour  of  this  derivation 
and    the  objection   that   we  find  them   applied  to  all  persons 
as  well  as  the  third  and  Jirst  is  not  conclusive,  for  words  in 
such   frequent  tise  miglit  very  soon  cease  to  be  changed  ac- 
cording to  the  sense,    especially  if  funned  in   tlie   intercourse 
of   two  races,    imperfectly  acquainted  with  each  otl»er*'s   lan- 
guage ;   a  circumstance  which  may  account  for  the  adoption 
of  the  Roman   pronoun   ?7  in  one  case,  and  the  German  ich 
in  the  other.     The  use  of  the  negative  of  the  third  ur  first 
j)erson  for  all  the  others  does  not  appear  more  irregular  than 
such  phrases   as  the  Greek  eariv  ot,   where  the  grammatical 
connection    is   completely    gone;    if   indeed   the   question    be 
asked  why   ihe  Froveni,'al  should  have  selected  the  first,   and 
the  Northern  dialect,  the   third   perscm,   I    do  not   know  that 
we  can  attsign  a  more  satisfactory  reason,  than  for  the  fact,  that 
the    Italians    took    the  termination  of    the   ablative  for  their 
nouns  in  tlic  singular  number,  and  the  Spauiardti  that  of  the 
ftccusative  for  their  nouns  in  the  plural. 

'*  Etjmolngie  FnuicuK,  I7aO.  in  v.  ouf. 


Particles  of  the  English  L&ngunge.  825 

Our  author  rejects  the  connection  of  the  particle  7V1  with 
jehan  to  say">  and  his  reasons  arc  strong.  Jehan  itself  it 
according  to  him  forme<i  irregularly  {unorganittch)  from 
iah  tlie  prfeterite  of  eihhan  the  Old  High  German  verb  cor- 
responding with  the  Gothic  aikaHi  (Latin,  aijere)^  of  which 
the  past  tense  was  aiaik.  Now  as  the  particle  ja  cxistB 
in  Gothic,  it  clearly  could  not  come  from  a  (lerivativc  of 
K  tense  of  a  High  German  verb.  It  ought  rather  to  have 
been  aih  or  ai  in  Gothic — but  is  it  not  poBsible  that  it  may 
hav«  been  a  transposition  of  this  syllable,  like  nn  and  an, 
en  and  ;i*?  '^,  or  his  own  still  bolder  case  of  et  and  re  t 

Our  English  ay  may  perhaps  be  looked  on  as  confirming 
this  view,  and  being  a  transposition  of  ja.  Thus  the  process 
would  have  been  reversed  and  ja  changed  again  to  ai ;  but 
there  is  perhaps  greater  reason  to  suppose  that  It  is  the 
Saxon  a,  of  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speaV  a  little 
further  on ;  especially  from  the  use  of  aye  in  the  sense 
for  eupr.  All  such  conjectures  are  idle  when  opposed  to 
Grimm's  learning  and  thorough  knowledge  of  his  subject, 
which  I  doubt  not  would  have  suggested  what  I  have  stated, 
hod  there  not  been  some  objection  which   I   do  not  see.       ' 

The  Gothic  ])article  used  in  ne^-ative  answers  was  nr^  but 
the  other  Teutonic  dialects  seem  early  to  have  adopted  a 
less  simple  form.  The  High  German  is  nein;  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  nrJ,  which  is  our  Engish  iw.  Nein  is  compounded 
of  ni~ein,  just  as  nmi  in  Latin  was  from  ne  nnvmy  rienum 
is  <|Uoted  by  Nonius  Marcellus  from  Lucilliua  and  Varro, 
and  it  occurs  in  Lucretius"  without  the  final  m.  Grimm 
supposes  unum  to  have  been  ^(r«7«H,  and  compares  pema, 
pamio — mania — mu7tio — pomwrium — mnrua.  Vossius  ad- 
mits this  derivation  of  fiojiy  but  conjectures  that  nennm  may 
be  from  vij — ov-  He  then  derives  from  nenum  the  French 
nenil  and   the  Dutch   neefi!      In  Latin  this  compound  noti 

*  The  verb  jaAan  or  jthcn  exisu  In  Swiuetluid  ndll,  exacUj'  in  the  aenae  or  ato 
**  was^Af  «r  7^*  vaasprivMerf  (SimmenUi&l,)  i^UJden,  i»chweiMrischea  Idiotilton, 
Vol.  II.  p.  78. 

*•  III.  p.  711'  748.  See  Von  der  Hagen*a  GIoMury  to  the  Niltelungen  lied  in  r.  en 
or  ne. 

"  lit,  200,  IV.  71B.  Scaliger  would  tcwl,  *•  nenv  trptM  "  for  *'tt*wo  erptitt" 
Tcr.  Kunuch,  i.  1.7-  ul  Viuiun.  p.  3±1. 

1  Set  llenychiui,  o\vlX,tiV   nl  ftoi>n^*9  Ktird  yXw****. 


326  On  certain  Affirmat'tve  and  Negative 

became  the  principal  negative  in  conjunction  with  the  verl). 
In  German  7iein  is  only  the  answer  to  a  question.  In  our 
own  language  and  in  German,  not  and  nioht^  have  usurped 
the  place  of  the  simple  negative  «/•,  which  we  find  in  Chaucer, 
and  which  gave  much  greater  flexibility  to  the  language  from 
its  position  before  the  verb. 

Our  own  negative  no^  which  enters  into  the  compoHition 
of  ««/,  is  satisfactorily  .shown  by  Grimm  to  couHist  of  «p, 
and  the  Anglo-Saxon  a,  ever  or  always.  The  Gothic  form 
of  this  was  ai**  (compare  Greek  aeti  Latin  wvum)  and  n»- 
flir  meant  7iever.  The  Old  High  German  used  ^o  and  io, 
whence  nieo^  ?ze6,  nio,  and  in  composition  fiet'rman,  neowiht-, 
no-man^  nothing.  When  therefore  we  sav  **  no  one,"  ii  is 
originally  the  same  phrase  as  the  vulgarisim  '*  never  a  one." 
Never,  itself  is  compounded  with  the  Dative,  as  Grimm 
supposes,  of  a  lost  substantive  rE/er,  (ever,  derived  from  an 
Gothic  aiv.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  traces  in  English  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  "ne  ^e  answering  to  their  affirmative  ^e  se  ; 
so  that  since  the  extinction  of  nay  in  common  conversation, 
no  is  our  only  negative  answer  to  subjective  questions.  There 
may  be  a  question  raised  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  our 
nay  or  nau  and  of  the  fo'-lowing  suppositions  I  hardly  know 
which  is  most  probable ;  first  that  ay  is  the  Saxon  «,  fi?er, 
which  seems  likely  from  the  reason  stated  above,  and  that 
nay  is  that  word  with  the  negative  preHxed,  and  tliercfore 
originally  tlie  same  as  no.  The  former  perhaps  being  fornietl 
by  the  written  language,  the  latter  by  the  usual  change  of  the 
broad  a  into  o,  as  ac,  ouAr,  ban,  bime.  Or,  secondly,  that  nay  is 
the  Gothic  negative  «e,  and  unconnected  with  the  alBrmative 
particle  which  it  resembles.  It  may  be  worth  while  perlmps  to 
return  for  a  moment  to  the  distinction  of  Sir  Thomas  More, 
now  that  we  have  in  some  degree  considered  the  origin  of 
the  particles  which  he  speaks  of.  The  difference  asserted  bv 
him    to   exist,   is,   that   yea   and  nay  are  the  answer  to  the 


"  ThcM  two  words  arc  the  jtanie,  and  boOi  ine*n  nofhinp.  Th«  virUtinns  »re. 
Old  High  Uermvi,  ntoirihty  niavicht,  nielil.  ^liddle  High  German,  nicA/,  miA/. 
Almlrm  IIibH  (Icrman,  hjM/.  Angtd-Sason,  riilriA/,  nuuhl,  nauhl.  Eli|;li«h, 
naughty  ht>(.     (trtmni  in.  \M,  721. 

"  Ortinm  itt.  140.  B?. 

■^  Jfuk.  p.  t^  Urimm  in.  iRIi, 


Particles  of  the   English    Lanffiioffe,  327- 

questions  in  which  nn  negative  is  inserted,  or  when  the  opinion 
of  the  speaker  in  not  derlnred.  Yat  aucl  no,  to  those,  in  which 
by  cA'pressinff  the  negative,  the  question  is  equivalent  to, 
or  implies  an  assertion  on  the  part  of  him  who  proposes  it. 
Gese  and  nese  would  apply  more  fitly  to  the  case  where  a 
previous  assertion  is  made,  than  to  one  where  nothing  has 
been  pronount'cd  before,  and  we  find  nene  used  in  this  manner, 
equivalent  to  *''it  is  not  so."  John  vii.  12.  "  sumc  ewa'tton, 
heys^dd,  oSre  cwcetton,  ne  *«•'*  But  nevertheless,  I  doubt 
very  much  whether  the  distinction  that  Afore  upholds  ex- 
isted in  .AngIc>-Saxon,  at  least  in  John  xxi.  5,  we  find  it 
disregarded  in  the  case  of  ne  «c,  cwe^e  ge  hmbbe  ge  sufoll  ? 
Hig  andswaro{l«n  hym,  ne  so.'"  It  may  however  liave  grown 
up  after  this  period,  and  yet  be  not  the  less  grounded  on 
a  real  difference  in  the  words.  The  better  way  will  be  to 
go  through  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
the  words  way,  yea.,  and  yp«  occur,  and  compare  in  each 
case  the  translation  of  AVicIif  and  of  Tyndal.  To  begin 
with  that  in  which  Tyndal  is  attacked  by  More  ;  John  i.  21  ; 
*'art  thou  that  prophet?"  is  answered  by  nat/  in  Wiclirs 
translation,  no  in  Tyndal,  and  no  in  our  authorized  version, 
John  XXI.  5y  "Children  have  ye  any  meat?"  in  Wiclif  nai; 
Tyndal,  no;  our  version^  no;  Luke  xii.  51,  "Suppose  ye 
that  I  am  come  to  give  peace  on  earth  ?*"  is  answered  by  nnt/ 
in  all  those  translations,  and  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  by  ne. 
The  same  is  the  cast  with  the  affirmative  questions.  Luke 
xiii.  S — 5;  Rom.  ni.  9,  "Are  wo  better  then  than  they  ?"'  in 
Wiclif  the  reply  is  noi;  in  Tyndal  and  the  nuKlern  version 
no;  but  in  the  27th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  all  use  nfty. 
In  Cranmer's  Bible,  Haggai  n.  12,  (an  affirmative  question) 
is  answered  by  no.  In  Coverdak'''8  and  in  our  version,  the 
negative  question,  Zech.  iv.  5,  *'  Knowest  thou  not  what 
these  be?'"  is  replied  to  by  no.  It  is  clear  I  think,  from 
these  instances,  that  the  distinction  was  practically  gone  in 
Henry  VHP''  time,  however  More  might  wish  to  renew 
it  to  disparage  his  opjioticnt.  But  it  is  singular  that  whereas 
in  the  later  translations,  7io  and  7iay  seem  used  indifferently,  in 
no  one  of  these  cases  of  affirmative  questions  does  no  occur  in 
Wiclif.  Unfortunately  I  do  not  know  of  any  ncgafhe  question 
answered  by  a  negative  particle  in  the  New  Testament ;  if  such 
Vol.  n.  No.  5.  Tx 


^ 


328     On  certain  Affirmative  and  Negative  Partictesj  ^c 

an  instance  sliould  be  pointed  out,  and  Wiclif  there  used 
noy  it  would  be  pretty  well  decided  that  he  acknowledged 
the  usage. 

With  yea  and  pes  there  is  not  so  ranch  difficulty.  In 
Matth.  IX.  «8,  XIII.  51,  Acts  V.  8,  xxii.  27,  (all  affirmative 
questions,)  yea  is  used  by  Wiclif,  by  Tyndal,  and  by  our 
own  version.  Wlierca.s  in  Rom.  ni.  29,  "  Is  he  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only?  is  he  not  also  of  the  Gentiles?"  Ke«,  is  the 
answer  in  all  these  tranelatloni.  I  am  aware  that  the  num- 
ber of  instances  I  have  cited  is  too  small  to  form  a  com- 
plete induction;  but  1  trust  that  some  other  person  wliosc 
reading  in  the  older  writers  is  more  extensive  than  my 
own,  may  point  out  such  others  as  may  decide  the  question. 
As  it  is,  it  seems  as  if  there  was  sotne  foundation  for  More''a 
rule,  though  it  evidently  soon  ceased  to  be  observed.  At 
any  rate,  trifling  as  such  speculations  are,  I  trust,  one  or 
two  points  may  have  been  recalled  to  the  reader^s  mind  in 
these  few  pages,  bearing  on  that  most  interesting  fact*', 
•*  that  tpe  iito  are  sprung  of  I^arth^a  ,/irst  bloody  and  that 
cur  speech  is  the  title  deed  of  our  descent  from  i/." 


*  Sec  p,  212  of  thb  wort,  Vol.  ii. 


E.   \V.  H. 


^ 


[The  perusal  of  the  foregoing  c^say  has  induced  us  once 
more  to  draw  un  Lliu  treasures  of  tlie  Berlin  Academy,  and 
to  communicate  to  our  readers  a  short  memoir  contained 
in  the  Transactions  of  the  years  1812 — 1813,  which  will 
certainly  be  read  with  pleasure  by  all  who  take  an  interest 
in  the  subject  discussed  by  our  correspondent.] 

ON  OC  AND  OYL, 

PAHTICULAKLT     WITH      REl-'EBENCE     TO     WHAT     DaNTK     SAYS 
ON    THE    SUDJSCT.       By    J.  E.    BlESTER. 


One  of  the  most  remarkable,  and  (which  is  here  of 
the  greatest  importance)  one  of  the  earliest  passages  relating 
to  the  two  affirmatives  of  the  elder  French  language,  oc  and 
oyl  (or  oil)t  occurs  in  Dante'^s  work  de  vulgnri  elaquentia* 
This  little  work  of  the  gr,;at  poet,  written  in  Latin,  remained 
long  unknown  and  in  manuscript.  When  in  1529,  tliat  is, 
more  than  200  years  after  it  was  written,  Trissino  publi^lied 
an  Italian  translation  of  it,  doubts  were  started  of  its  genuine- 
ness, and  it  was  suspected  of  being  a  forgery  of  Trissino 
himself  (for  it  was  soon  discovered  that  he,  not  the  Genoese 
Doria,  under  whose  name  he  attempted  to  conceal  himself, 
was  the  editor  or  translator),  and  of  being  det»igncHl  to  sup. 
port  certain  doctrines  wliich  he  had  previously  maintained 
on  the  subject  of  poetry  and  of  the  Italian  language,  corres- 
ponding with  those  which  appeared  in  this  treatise.  Such 
for  instance  was  the  judgement  pronounced  by  Varchi  (£r- 
colano,  dulfit.  6),  who  too  boldly  asserts  that  nobody  had 
ever  seen  or  known  anything  of  the  original.  There  were 
however  several  copies  of  it  in  existence,  and  accordingly 
the  Latin  text  was  edited  in  1577,  after  tlie  fleath  of  Varchi 
and  Trissino,  by  Corbinelli,  no  partisan  of  the  first  translator, 
with  whom  on  the  contrary  he  declares  himself  by  no  means 


I 


330  On  Oc  and  Oyl. 

satisfied.  Indeed,  without  prejudice  to  Trissino's  other 
merits,  it  is  impossible  to  give  him  credit  for  a  work,  which 
in  knowledge  of  the  ancient  literature,  and  still  more  in  point 
of  intelligence,  far  exceeded  the  compass  of  his  abilities  and 
acqiiireuicnts.  The  controversy,  or  rathur  the  doubt,  lauted 
yet  fur  some  time;  but  the  best  Italian  critics  have  long  since 
decided  that  the  treatise  belongs  to  the  great  Florentine 
poet.  Among  others  see  Muzio  (in  his  Varchino)  who  as- 
serted this  even  in  1570,  before  the  original  was  printed, 
Fontanini  (Eioffu.  Ital.  lihrn  2),  and  Scip.  AEaffei,  in  his 
preface  to  the  new  edition  of  Trissino's  works.  Corbi nellies 
edition,  which  was  published  at  Paris,  was  long  the  only  one, 
and  hence  the  Latih  text  was  extremely  rare,  for  which  rea- 
son it  was  annexed  to  the  translation  in  the  new  edition  of 
Trissino  1 7S0 :  but  without  CorbinelliV  valuable  Italian 
noted  on  the  first  book,  which  Maffei  had  meant  to  have  also 
reprinted. 

Now  in  this  work  (lib.  i.  cap.  8)  Dante,  singularly 
enough,  determines  the  diversity  of  nations  and  their  lan- 
guages, according  to  their  affirmalive  particles.  In  his 
great  poem  indeed  be  characterizes  Italy  in  the  same  way, 
as  the  land  where  the  si  is  heard,  and  one  of  its  districts  as 
that  in  which  men  say  sipa^.  Strange  as  it  may  appear 
that  1)0  should  have  selected  these  particles  for  his  purpose* 
though  in  fact  they  are  subject  to  less  alteration  than  other 
words,  one  cannot  but  be  struck  with  surprize  and  admiration, 
at  finding  that  his  piercing  intellect  had  already  recognized 
the  truth,  that  language  is  the  criterion  of  national  descent. 
In  the  aljovequotcd  pas.'iage  of  hi.s  T.«tiii  work,  he  gives  a 
general  division  of  the  Biuvpean  nations,  as  after  the  con- 
fusion of  language  they  cither  moved  westward  to  occupy 
our  quarter  of  the  globe  for  the  first  time,  or  having  origi- 
nally sprung  from  it  returned  to  their  ancient  seats,  a  point 


'  rnfcTT).  33.  00  1  Ahi  Pisa,  vjiupciio  delle  RWiti 

Del  bel  pncM  \a,  dove  il  fti  Huona. 
■lid  in.  4iU  .__  lin^c  BfiprcM 

A  dicer  tiipa  tn  S&rena  c'  t  Renn. 
Thcie  iwo  rivulem  bound  the  city  of  HDlogJia  and  n  (lart  of  Iw  icrritory.     According 
to  ihe  comincniBton  nnd  die  DelU  t'ru»cii  Dictioiury  ihc  Uologiictc  use  or  did  UM  sipa 
tvtsi:  Fcmon  oa  the  otltci  linni  explaias  U  hy  fiu. 


On  Oc  and  Oyl  331 

un  which  he  does  not  decide:  His  division  is:  northern 
Europeans:  southern  Europeans:  et  fertn  fjuo9  nunc  Grcecos 
voc/iiiiuJt  partem  EuroptE  parfem  A»ice  ocrnparunt.  a)  He 
draws  the  line  of  northern  Europe  from  the  motith  of  the 
Danuhe  or  the  Palus  Mieotis,  nhovc  the  boundaries  of  Itflly 
and  France,  to  the  ocean  which  washes  the  western  const  of 
England.  Here,  he  says,  there  was  fonnerly  hut  one  lan- 
guage, wliich  affirmed  with  jo:  tliis  was  afterwards  split  into 
several  vufffaria,  by  means  of  Sclavonians,  Hungarians,  Ger- 
mans, Saxons,  and  English :  but  as  a  proof  of  their  common 
origin  almost  all  the  nations  of  these  northern  countiies  still 
use  the  affirmative  particle  Jo.  b)  He  touches  but  briefly  on 
the  people  dwelling  to  the  cast  of  Himgary,  and  extending 
into  Asia,  whom  he  calls  Greeks  (meaning  as  is  evident  the 
subjects  of  the  Byzantine  empire),  and  does  not  give  their 
affirmative  particle,  c)  Southern  Europe,  that  included  within 
the  line  traced  as  above,  lias  also,  he  says,  in  substance  only 
one  language,  derived  from  the  Latin,  as  is  proved  by  the 
words  there  used  for  Deus^  ccelumy  amoVy  Mart'y  terra^  vivUt 
moriturj  and  almost  all  the  rest.  For  the  word  amor,  by 
way  of  proof  and  at  the  same  time  to  illustrate  his  subdi- 
vision, he  quotes  three  passages  from  as  many  poets,  one 
Provencal,  one  French,  one  Spanish.  For,  he  proceeds  in 
the  same  chapter,  the  southern  language  is  again  divided 
into  three  dialects;  some  affirm  with  or,  others  with  oyi,  others 
with  si ;  utputa  yupaniiy  Fraud,  Latini.  Why  he  here 
terms  the  Proven<;;aIs  Spaniards,  we  shall  consider  hereafter. 
His  Franei  arc  the  French.  Latini  is  the  name  by  which 
he  describes  the  Italians,  lx)th  here  ami  in  the  THvina  Co- 
media,  as  is  also  the  practice  of  his  contemporary  country- 
men. 

He  now  proceeds  to  determine  the  seats  of  these  nations: 
those  who  use  otj  dwell  westward  of  Genoa,  and  down  to- 
ward the  south;  those  who  affirm  with  **,  eastward  to  the 
Adriatic,  antl  southward  as  far  as  Sicily,  that  island  in- 
cluded ;  those  who  say  otfl  are  seated  to  the  north  of  the 
first,  are  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  English  sea,  and 
Germany,  that  is,  by  those  who  affirm  with  jo,  and  on  the 
south  Promnciaiibus  et  Apennini  devejione  clauduntur. 
Here  therefore   he    himself   names    the    Provencals    (Prorin- 


I 


332  On  Oc  and  Oyl. 

dales)  as  lluise  who  use  ttc,  as  he  designates  tlic  Italians 
who  say  ai  by  their  mountains,  the  Apennines,  which  begin 
in  the  territory  of  Genoa.  But  what  might  create  some 
surprize,  is  the  clause  he  adds  concerning  the  French  pro- 
perly so  called  (the  people  who  affirni  with  oy})  :  et  mon~ 
tibus  Arngonice  ferminati ;  so  that  he  docs  not,  as  is  usually 
the  case,  assign  the  whole  of  Southern  France,  but  only 
its  eastern  half,  to  the  language  of  oc.  This  however  is 
in  some  respects  really  more  accurate;  the  oc  language 
belonged  principally  to  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Whether,  as  is  most  probable,  it  spread  from  Provence  and 
crossed  the  Pyrenees,  or,  as  patriotic  Spaniards  insist,  tra- 
velled from  Catalonia  into  France ; — at  all  events  its  prin- 
cipal scat  was  always  on  this  coast :  in  Provence,  Langue- 
doc,  thence  turning  aside  to  Gascony,  and  only  a  little  higher 
in  the  Limosin ;  further  in  Barcelona  or  Catalonia,  the  ad- 
jacent kingdom  of  Aragon,  which  was  long  united  with  Cata- 
lonia, moreover  Valencia,  as  far  as  Murcia;  and  also  in  the 
islands  Minorca,  Majorca,  Ivica,  and  even  Sardinia.  These 
are  the  countries  in  which  this  language  flourished,  and  for 
the  most  part  still  subsists.  Now  Dante  is  perfectly  right, 
in  not  extending  this  language  of  oc  in  the  south  of  France 
westward  as  far  as  the  Atlantic;  for  there,  in  Navarre  and 
a  part  of  Aquitafne,  an  entirely  different  language  prevailed 
— the  Bask.  But  whether  he  confounded  this  with  the 
French  (the  oyi),  since  he  extends  this  last  as  far  as  the 
mountains  of  Aragon,  or  whether  a  strip  of  the  oyi  rcially 
ran  down  between  the  Bask  and  the  oc  into  Spain,  I  do  not 
venture  to  decide.  It  is  true  that  in  any  case  he  has  not 
noticed  the  Bask,  any  more  than  the  Bas^Bretou  in  the  north- 
west of  France ;  but  then  the  subject  of  his  treatise  was  no 
other  than  the  languages  of  ocy  oyf,  and  si;  though,  as  a 
man  of  vigorous  mind  and  original  genius,  he  at  the  same 
time  took  a  higher  point  of  view  for  a  general  sunxy  of  the 
principal  European  languages,  which  however  do  not  include 
tongues  confined  to  so  narrow  a  compass  as  the  Bask,  and 
the  ancient  British. 

We  now  proceetl  to  consider  two  important  remarks  of 
Dante  on  the  literature  of  the  abovementioned  three  lan- 
guages, 6iDc«  it  is  on  account  of  their  literature  that  languages 


I 


On  Oc  and  Oyl;  a33 

«re  most  interesting  to  us.  Tliusu  remarks  relate  to  the  an- 
tiquity and  t)ie  contents  of  each  literature.  I)  In  hia  admi- 
rable work»  the  Vita  Nuova^  he  says  (Keirs  edition,  p.  52) 
of  the  lingua  d*oco^  and  lingua  di  sit  that  it  was  not  more 
thfui  150  years  since  poems  had  been  composed  in  these  vul- 
gar tongiies  (in  contradistinction  to  the  genuine  Latin)}  and 
these  only  lovc-pocms,  designed  for  female  readers,  who  would 
have  found  it  too  difficult  to  understand  Latin  verses.  With 
his  usual  accuracy  and  precision,  he  twice  declares,  "  I  only 
say  among  us  (fra  noi),  since  the  case  may  have  been  different 
with  another  people.*'  These  150  years  would  reach  to  the 
middle,  or  up  to  the  beginning  nf  the  ISth  century,  and  in 
fact  among  the  Provencal  poets,  who  ore  admitted  to  be  earlier 
than  the  Spanish,  the  Italian,  and  the  French,  none  is  cer- 
tainly known  to  have  preceded  William,  count  of  Poitiers, 
born  1077,  dec.  112f>.  Here  we  are  naturally  led  to  think 
of  the  Germans,  the  first  of  whose  Minnesaenger,  Henry  of 
Veldeck,  sang  not  long  after  count  William,  scarcely  a  cen- 
tury after  his  birth.  Titurcl  was  written,  according  to  Doccn, 
about  Iisy:  according  to  the  more  critical  opinion  of  A.  W. 
Sdilegel,  about  ISSI  *.  Though  the  latter  date  b  about  a 
century  later  than  the  death  of  the  first  Provencal  poet,  it  is 
still  just  a  hundred  years  earlier  than  the  death  of  Dante: 
and  though  the  subject  and  title  of  the  poem  shew  that  it 
was  founded  on  the  lays  of  southern  poets,  still  it  is  manifest 
from  the  extreme  beauty  of  the  thoughts,  the  poetical  expres- 
sions, and  the  metrical  form,  that  the  art  must  have  been 
then  practised  for  many  generations  by  a  series  of  very  suc- 
cessful masters.  Still  greater  is  the  antiquity  of  the  jjoctical 
panegyric  on  S.  Anno.  Nothing  can  be  produced  in  the 
literature  of  the  south  to  be  compared,  in  point  of  antiquity, 
with  Otfricd,  who  wrote  his  great  German  poem  in  the  9th 
century,  and  yet  mentions  earlier  lay»\  which  in  fact  he 
wished  to  banish  out  of  popular  use  by  hia  own,  because  they 
appeared  to  him  trifling  and  indecent.  It  would  lead  us  ttxi 
far,  if  wc  were  to  dwell  on  this  subject ;  we  llierefore  only 
refer  to  the  two  German  poems  of  the  8th  century  published 

*  Docoi'a  Titurol,  p.  12  and  AS,  nuic.    Sdilcweri  review  in  ihe  Ifeirtelbcrs  JaSri*. 
NovfmH.  lail-i..  11173. 

1  In  his  I.«iin  deiliraiion  (o  the  Archbiihop  of  Ma^mce. 


I 


334  On  Oc  and  Oyl. 

by  the  brothers  Grimm,  and  to  the  Nibclungcn,  though  we 
only  possess  this  immortal  work  in  secontlary  forms.  2)  Dante 
{de  vulff.  eloqu.  lib.  I.  cap.  10)  briefly  and  happily  distin- 
guishes the  qualities  of  the  literatures  of  oe,  and  of  oyly  which 
afterwards  became  the  subject  of  a  controversy,  whicli  excilecl 
almost  as  much  zeal  and  jealousy  as  the  rival  literary  preten- 
sions of  northern  and  southern  Germany.  The  great  I'^loren- 
tine,  who  was  well  acquainted  wiili  I'Vance,  partly  through 
his  teacher  Bnmetto  X^atini,  who  resided  there  long,  and  even 
wrote  an  important  work  in  French,  and  jiartly  by  personal 
inspection,  calls  the  language  of  of  the  elder  and  sweeter  for 
poetry,  that  oi  oyl  on  the  other  hand  the  more  poUshe<t  and 
elegant  for  prose:  this  la»t,  he  sav9<  possesses  the  Bible  and 
the  histories  of  Troy  an*l  Rome,  and  the  beautiful  chivalrous 
tales  of  king  Arthur.  It  is  nearly  in  the  same  way  that  Lc 
Grand  d'Aussy  extols  northern  France  on  account  of  the 
more  varied  subjects  of  its  poetry  :  whereas  southern  France, 
according  to  Iiim,  can  produce  nothing  but  monotonous  love- 
songs,  an<l  for  instance,  no  talcs  and  histories.  Miltot,  pro- 
voked by  this  reproach,  brings  forward  some  pretty  Provencal 
stories.  On  the  whole  however  Dante^s  observation  is  pro- 
bably correct,  though  neither  of  the  contending  parties  seem 
to  have  been  acquainted  with  it:  the  greater  luxuriance  of 
nature  has  perhaps  a  tendency  to  inspire  occasional  strains  and 
short  tender  lays,  which  however  charming,  and  masterly  in 
their  form,  weary  in  the  end,  nnd  this  narrowness  of  range 
may  have  been  the  cause  of  the  early  extinction  of  the  Pro- 
veafal  poetry. 

To  proceed :  Dante  speaks  fully  enough  of  the  lingua  oe, 
but  means  nothing  by  it  but  the  language  itself.  He  has  no 
name,  such  as  Langucdoc,  for  the  country.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  notorious  that  it  was  usual  to  say  lingua^  langue, 
for  people  or  nation :  and  it  was  a  very  easy  transition  to  use 
the  same  word  for  the  laud  of  the  people  which  spoke  the 
language.  Still  it  is  probable  that  there  arc  not  many  ex- 
amples of  a  country's  being  described  by  a  word  or  expression 
of  the  language  s[K}ken  in  it.  It  is  quite  another  thing  when 
Dante  uses  lingua  d'ocOj  lingua  di  si,  shortly  to  designate 
the  languages  which  contain  those  particles.  But  he  does  not 
say  the  laud  ttf  si  for  Italy,  t]ic  district  of  tttpn  for  Bologna. 


On  Oc  and  Oyl.  .T3.^ 

So  it  is  quite  another  thing  when  in  France,  to  which  we 
must  look  for  the  name  T.angupdoc,  we  read  in  ancient  docu- 
ments, langue  de  Normnndie.  for  the  province :  (toute  fwtre 
terre  aasiae  en  l^idite  langue  de  Normnndie,  says  a  coimt  of 
Creasy,  in  1348,  of  his  lands  situate  there.  Ducange,  Lin- 
gua) and  in  the  same  sense  langue  Picarde.  Tongue  for 
a  country  is  not  too  bold :  on  the  other  hand  it  would  be 
less  usual,  though  here  quite  proper,  for  a  word  from  the 
language  or  dialect  of  Normandy  or  Picnrdy  to  be  used  to 

express  those  provinces Joinville,  a  contemporary  of  Dnnte, 

has  not  the  name  either,  even  when  there  was  strong  induce- 
ment to  employ  it.  He  tells  of  a  hard  battle  in  Syria,  in 
which  he  was  himself  in  great  danger,  till  two  other  knights 
came  to  his  aid  :  they  were  Olivier  de  Termes  ami  Arnoul 
ric  Cominges.  Both  the  names,  whether  of  their  possessions 
or  birthplace,  point  to  Langiiedoc,  which  is  also  confirmed 
by  historical  researches.  But  the  narrative  contains  the 
words:    "il  s'en  alia   par  devers    Messire  Ol.  de  Termes,  et 

k  ses  aultres  capitaines  de  la  torte  langue^  et  leur  dit  .** 

The  expressiou  is  very  singular,  and  difficult  to  uudertitand. 
Ducange  (Lingua)  pro[>oses  to  read  cor^tf  langue^  lingua 
curlay  OS  l.anguedoc  is  said  to  be  called  iu  some  manuscript 
Notitice,  but  he  does  not  enter  further  into  an  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  the  name.  Le  Duchat  (in  Menage.  Lajigue- 
doc)  retains  the  reading  tortcy  and  explains  it  to  mean  dis- 
tnrtedy  that  is,  from  the  Latin:  an  epitliet,  which  as  it  was 
very  appropriate  to  the  language  of  or,  might  he  thinks  have 
been  applied  to  it  from  the  beginning.  However  this  Ik*,  wc 
see  tliat  nothing  can  be  meant  here  but  lea  antre^  Capitaines 
de  Languedoc.  Yet  Joinville  does  not  use  the  expression, 
or  name,  Languedoc,  so  that  we  are  atmuat  forced  to  con- 
clude, that  it  did  not  exist  in  his  time. 

At  B  later  period  the  expression  lingna  Occtiana  occurs 
in  Latin  documents,  as  in  a  charter  of  the  French  king  Louis 
Hutin  in  1S15,  and  in  one  of  Edward  IIL  of  England  in 
1S47>  But  this  epithet,  which  seemn  clearly  to  point  to  the 
word  OP,  is  again  rendered  doubtful,  and  may  appear  to  be 
a  mere  corruption,  from  the  singular  circumstance  that  at  a 
still  earlier  period  in  the  reign  of  Hutin's  father,  Philip 
the  Handsome,  the  same  country  is  called  Hngna  Auxitanu 
Vol.  U.   No.  .>.  Uu 


On  Oc  and  0)rl. 


(Ducange.  Liiigiia).  This  appellation  iuimcdiately  directs 
us  to  Aucb,  the  capital  of  Gascony ;  so  that  in  this  instance 
jain  the  language  would  be  named  from  a  place  or  a  region, 
in  langue  de  Normandicy  langtte  Picardey  not  from  one 
its  words.  For  Gaacony  comprises  several  races,  or  at 
'  lea.st  several  popular  languages.  The  nauie  itself  points  to 
the  Bask  imtion,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  many  districts, 
that  of  Labour  for  instance,  in  which  Hayonne  is  situate, 
belong  to  the  region  whicli  it  once  occupied.  But  though 
this  is  unquestionably  the  case  with  regard  to  some  western 
districts,  and  perhaps  some  southern  ones  also,  where  the 
Bask  is  still  spoken,  principally  by  the  peasantry  ;  it  i8  no 
less  certain  that  in  other  tracts  of  this  province  the  language 
of  oc  prevails,  having  been  introduced  from  the  adjacent 
region  of  Toulouse  and  Languedoc,  and  only  raodiiied  by 
some  varieties  of  dialect.  This  is  proved  by  the  grammars 
and  dictionaries  of  the  language,  in  which  tlie  terms  Langue- 
docian  and  Gascon  are  used,  and  by  natives  of  Langue- 
doc, as  perfectly  equivalent.  A  coUection  of  Tolosan 
poets,  among  whom  Goudouli,  who  lived  in  the  reign 
of  Louis  XIII.,  fills  a  distinguished  place,  was  published 
at  Toulouse  under  the  title  of  Recueil  de  pitcfets  Gnacotu. 
In  short  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Gascony  itself  is  a 
seat  of  the  Ungua  Ocdtana^  which,  aa  wc  hare  seen,  ia 
also   denominated   from    the  capital,    and   very  properly    and 

legitimately,  iitigua  AtiMtana Yet  it  would  be  precipitate 

to  think  of  solving  the  whole  enigma  of  the  oc  by  this  fact. 
Close  as  is  the  resemblance  of  sound  between  the  adjectives, 
OciHlana,  A'U.ritana,  there  is  little  between  their  roots,  oc 
and  Auch  (oche).  For  this  is  the  way  in  which  the  name 
of  the  capital  is  pronounced  by  the  French,  who  for  this 
reason  often  write  it  with  an  s  (Ausch).  This  sibilant, 
which  is  wholly  wanting  in  oc  and  oco^  is  a  radical  element 
in  the  other  word,  and  hence  is  found  in  all  its  derivatives : 
in  Auchoi-8,  an  inhabitant  of  the  town,  and  in  its  Latin 
names  Augusta   Auncorum  or  Auttciorum:    and   even  in  the 

epithet  Auvitana If  we  were  only  to  look  at  the  spelling, 

instead  of  listening  to  tiic  pronunciation,  we  should  certainly 
be  very  much  struck  by  the  resemblance  between  the  name 
of  the   Gascon  city  Auch,  and  tlie  Gascon  affirmative,  ocA ; 


On  Oc  and  Oyl.  337 

for  it  is  often,  especially  in  ancient  time8«  found  written  with 
the  u-splrate,  only  liowever  hy  natives  of  northern  France:  those 
oS  Languedoc  protest  against  tliis  way  of  spelling  it,  and  with 
reason,  since  they  pronounce  the  ch  aa  in  Spanish  and  £ngUsh, 
otch.  But  according  to  them  the  word  does  not  even  admit 
the  softer  French  sound  of  the  ch ;  they  call  their  country 
Lengado  (len^a  signifying  tongue),  and  in  speaking  French 
they  never  say  tin  Languedochien,  but  Langicedocien.  Per- 
haps however  the  final  ch  was  not  intended  to  suggest  a 
diiTcrcnt  mode  of  pronunciation,  but  to  be  sounded,  as  in 
the  name  of  S.  Roch,  and  many  other  words,  like  the 
simple  c. 

Does  then  tlie  name  of  the  province  really  come  from 
the  affirmative  in  use  there? — I  had  believed,  long  before 
I  found  that  others  had  asserted  the  same  thing,  that  langue 
fCoc  was  a  corruption  of  langue  de.  Goth,  or  langue  Ooth, 
So  says  old  IlabelaiB,  who  was  not  deficient  in  learning,  in 
the  first  half  of  the  l6th  century :  Pantagruel,  livr.  S.  ch.  4, 
{ed.  Lc-Duchat  i.  382).  Dante,  as  we  have  seen,  terms  the 
people  who  say  or,  Spaniards.  But  Spain,  properly  so  called, 
probably  never  used  that  particle.  On  the  other  hand  every 
body  knows  that  Spain  was  occupied  by  the  Goths :  the 
name  of  Catalonia  is  derived  from  Gothalonia  :  but  the  Ca- 
talan language  is  the  Provencal,  and  this  is  the  langtte  d''oc. 
The  Goths  were  dominant  in  Provence  itself,  and  in  Lan- 
guedoc :  the  capital  of  the  latter  country,  Toulouse,  was 
the  residence  of  their  Kings.  In  short  we  find  Goths  in 
the  very  tracts,  the  language  of  which  wo  are  here  discussing. 
How  easily  may  it  have  derived  its  peculiarities  from  them, 
or  at  least  have  home  their  name  !  Even  in  the  later  Spanish 
historians  we  find  Languedoc  called  In  Francia  Gothica  (an 
instance  from  Scolanu  is  given  by  Eichhorn  in  his  Einleitungs' 
Geschichte  der  Knltur  i.  p.  61.). — The  word  Goth  has  been 
frequently  mutilated  and  curtailed,  so  as  to  be  no  longer 
recognized:  for  instance  in  the  Spanish  title  hidnlgOy  which, 
as  has  long  been  agreed  among  critics  of  the  highest  authority, 
means,  not  son  of  something  {hijo  d^algo)^  but  Goth's  son 
{hi-d''ai-go).  This  derivation  has  been  proved  by  German 
writers:  the  Spanish  etymologists,  I  ain  told,  know  nothing 
of  it.      I  may  therefore  be  permitted  to  take  this  opportunity 


1 


338 


Oti  Oc  and  Oyl. 


of  nientibnmg  a  trace  of  it,  which  has  occurred  to  me  ifi 
another  quarter,  in  one  uf  Scorron^s  cometh'es,  which  are  now 
but  little  read.  The  plots  of  all  these  pieces  are  Spanisht 
and  they  are  most  probably  borrowe<l  from  Spanish  writers, 
who  may  therefore  be  considered  as  speaking  in  them.  In 
Jodelet  Duellistcy  Act  i.  Sc.  2,  a  swaggering,  hectonog 
gentleman  coiues  in :  on  his  appearance  the  ser^'ant  says : 
*'Voici  quelque  fendant,  issu  d''uu  roi  des  Gatha."  In  tlie 
Bavhelier  de  Salamanque  it  i»  said  of  u  yuuiig  libertine, 
(Act  I.  Sc.  2.) 

Un  More  Grenadin  est  plus  que  lui  devot; 
Encorque  tVor'tgine  il  fioit  chevalier  Goth, 
Je  meure,  s'il  songea  jamais  a  ses  prieres. 
The  contrast  between  the  Moors  and  the  Goths  is  well  known : 
the  latter   were    brave  and   pious ;    and   here    the    Spaniard, 
who  ought  to  be  so,  is  distinctly  called  a  descendant  of  noble 
Goths,  chevalier  Goth  d'^origine  answering  exactly  to  hidalgo, 
because  the  Mahometans  did  not   make  so  much  account  of 
purity  of  blood   as  the  Christians  and  the  Gerniaus. 

If  on  these  grounds  wc  should  be  inclined  rather  to  derive 
the  name  of  the  country  from  a  people  than  from  a  word,  wc  are 
led  to  ask  another  question  :  Is  oc  really  n»cd  there  as  an  affir- 
mative ?  For  a  native  of  Langucdoc,  the  author  of  a  diction- 
ary of  the  language  [Dictionnaire  Languedocien — Fran^aia 
par  TAbbt*  dc  S.*  *  •  (Sauvage  or  Sauvages),  Ximes  1756.  Hvo.] 
expressly  a&scrts  (p,  Si2)  that  it  has  only  the  three  afRrma- 
tivcs  Of  6i.  and  oui,  and  not  oc,  so  that  the  name  could 
scarcely  be  derived  from  it — Tliis  assertion  however,  which 
I  here  notice  as  an  instructive  warning,  is  totally  erroneous. 
The  author  himself  retracte*!  it  in  the  altered  and  enlarged 
edition  of  his  book  which  he  published  thirty  years  afterward 
(Nimes  1783-  two  vol.).  He  there  now  and  then  illustrates 
the  words  with  phrases,  and  also  with  passages  from  the 
Bible :  and  in  these  wc  frequently  find  oc.  Crezes  aisso 
(this)  ?  oc  Senhor.  Jeksu  dix  ad  eU  (said  to  them)  oc.  Peter 
saith :  Oc  Senhor  iti  sabs  (fue  eii  amo  te.  Moreover  Dante, 
who  wais  thorouglily  acquainted  with  the  language,  and  himself 
composed  poems  in  it,  testifies  that  its  affirmative  was  oc 
(as  he  writes  it  in  Latin),  or  oco  (the  Italian  spelling). 
When   Kivllard   Ca!ur-d<^-Mo]ll   who,  aa  he   died   J 199,   ^'^ 


^ 
1 


On  Oc  flwrf  Oyl.  339 

nearly  a  century  oltlcr  tliaii  Dante,  according  to  the  ciistoni 
of  poets  in  those  days,  cliose  names  for  himself  and  the  Fro- 
venyal  poet  Dernard  dc  Bonn^  he  named  hiniitelf  and  his 
friend  oc  and  710  (yes  and  no.  Miltol  hist.  lit.  dea  Troulja- 
dours  J.  238).  In  Manni  (lUustruz.  istor.  di  Boeeueeio, 
p.  311)  in  the  sturv  of  tlie  celebrated  poet  William  uf  Ca- 
bestaugf  we  read :  Ezella  dis,  oc  Senhor  (and  she  8ai<l,  yes. 
Sir).  lu  short,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  oc  was  used 
00  an  afHrinative.  But  even  with  regard  to  the  modern 
usage,  though  it  is  only  the  an<'tent  langufigc  that  we 
are  concerned  with  in  investigating  this  etymology,  Sau- 
vage,  in  his  second  edition,  gives  us  better  information.  He 
says  (p.  109 — III):  there  are  at  present  five  modes  of  ex- 
pressing assent :  first  the  four,  o,  oc,  ocv,  oi,  aecurding  to 
the  different  districts  :  but  all  only  in  familiar  conversation 
with  |)ersons  whom  one  Mow*.  The  fifth,  ou-i  (for  it  is  tlius 
at  full  length  that  tlie  later  form  oiti  is  pronounced)  is  a 
respectful  answer  which  one  addresses  to  strangers  and  per- 
sons of  higher  nink,  as  being  nearer  to  the  French,  because 
genuine  Languedoc  words  arc  often  accounted  too  vulgar  or 
too  familiar,  so  that  one  who  is  not  on  intimate  terms  with 
the  company  never  hears  them,  though  at  other  times  the 
Languedoc  may  be  the  sole  language  of  conversation.  Ov 
therefore  not  only  was,  but  still  is,  the  affirmative  used 
there:  and  this  is  also  attested  by  all  who  have  ever  written 
on  the  subject. 

It  woidd  therefore  be  carrying  sceptiei»4m  too  far  to 
hesitate  about  deriving  the  name  Languedoc  from  the  par- 
ticle. As  to  the  Goths,  though  they  were  at  one  time 
masters  of  the  same  countries,  the  nature  of  the  language 
rebuts  their  pretensions.  It  is  so  nmch  nearer  to  the  Latin 
and  so  much  more  remote  from  the  German,  or  Gothic,  than 
for  instance  the  modern  French,  that  it  cannot  have  been 
called,  by  way  of  contrast  or  distinction,  the  Gothic  tongue. 
On  the  contrary  the  Provencals  themselves  for  this  very 
reason  termed  their  language  Ronmna :  though  that  of 
France  in  general,  both  the  south  and  the  north  was  like- 
wise so  called  (sometimes  witli  the  addition  rustica):  from 
which  denomination  of  the  vulgar  languages,  as  is  well 
known,    were    derived    the  terms    /?oin<rn,    Romance^    for  the 


On  Oc  and  Oyl. 

popular  poetry — Dantt'a  naming  the  Spaniards  as  the  peo- 
ple who  spoke  the  oc  language,  i»  explained  by  a  subsequent 
passage  (lib.  ii.  cap.  12),  where  he  goes  through  the  various 
metres,  and  fixes  on  the  hendccasjUabic  as  the  loftiest,  or 
as  he  terms  it,  the  tragic  one:  "Hoc  (endccasyllabo)  etiam 
Hispani  uai  sunt ;  et  dico  Ilispanos  qui  poetati  Hunt  in  vnfgari 
Oc :""  and  then  he  quotes  Haniericus  de  Belemi.  We  see,  as 
has  been  already  shown,  that  those  whuni  he  calls  Spaniards, 
are  the  same  whom  others  call  Proven^ls,  or  Limosins,  or 
Catalans.  (Aimeri  de  Belenii,  or  Beleiinai,  or  Belenui,  was 
bom  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bordeaux,  and  only  died  in 
Catalonia.  Millot.  ir.  331.)  We  have  already  traced  the 
wide  range  of  the  Oo,  or  Provent^al  language,  in  France  and 
Sjmin  :  but  beside  this  all  the  early  poets  of  the  south  of 
Europe  were  in  point  of  language  Provencals:  and  the  first 
chapter  of  every  history  of  poetry  among  the  Italians,  Sici- 
lians, Spaniards,  Portuguese,  aud  French  of  the  south,  must 
begin  with  these  oc  poets,  let  them  be  named  after  whatever 
country  they  will.  They  themselves,  and  their  language, 
belonged  to  various  countries :  there  is  no  general  denomi- 
nation for  them,  that  would  not  be  liable  to  like  objections 
as  that  of  Spaniards  which  Dante  uses. 

Finally,  however  singular  it  may  seem,  that  the  name 
of  a  language,  a  people,  or  a  country,  should  have  been 
derived  from  a  wordy  the  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  other 
name,  formed  in  complete  analogy  to  Languedoc,  and  con- 
trasted with  it:  Itt  Iniigne  d'oui.  It  is  true  that  this  appel- 
lation has  not  been  in  use  for  centuries,  nor,  ought  it  to  be 
observed,  was  it  ever  so  common  as  is  often  asserted  and 
generally  believed.  Many  old  documents  and  ancient  au- 
thors contrast  la  langtte  ifoc  and  la  /.  Fran^aise.  For 
France  was  the  name  given  to  the  dominions  of  the  kings, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  territories  of  the  great  vassals,  as 
here  in  tiie  south  of  the  powerful  counts  of  Provence.  Still, 
so  far  as  bcroks  are  concerned,  Froissart  aUme  is  evidence 
sufficient:  he  wrote  about  1400,  and  uses  the  term  as  a  com- 
mon one.  He  inquires  of  a  knight  vith  whom  he  is  tra- 
velling, about  the  causes  of  the  dissentions  of  the  great  men ; 
his  companion  answers  (Liv.  iii.  ch.  7-  Paris  1.^74.  Johne*8 
Trunsl  ill.  ch.  30.  p.  118)   that  after  the  death  of  Charles  V., 


I 


On  Oc  and  Oyl. 

during  the  minority  of  Charles  VI.,  the  kingdom  was  divided 
between  the  regents :  Le  due  de  Berry  etti  le  gmtvemement 
de  la  Langitedcch,  et  Ic  due  de  Burgogne  de  In  Langue- 
doyl  et  de  (ouie  //«  Picardie.  Ducange  seems  not  to  have 
possest,  or  to  have  seen  any  documentR,  in  which  the  ex- 
pression occurred,  himself:  at  least  he  docs  not  cite  any 
according  tu  his  usual  practice,  but  only  refertt  to  the  opinion 
of  others. — One  should  therefore  be  inclined  to  suppose  that 
the  term  langue  d'oc  did  not  come  into  use  for  the  country 
before  the  l-tth  century,  but  that  it  then  took  such  deep  root 
that  it  has  lasted  to  the  present  time.  This  arose  from  the 
want  of  a  general  name  for  all  the  countries  in  which  the 
language  was  spoken.  Indeed  one  might  wish  to  recall  it 
in  this  sense,  since  poets  of  the  oc  language  is  a  more  accu- 
rate expression,  and  less  apt  to  cause  confusion  of  ideas  than 
Proven9al,  or  any  other  local  name  that  can  be  chosen.  The 
general  name,  which  was  not  meant  to  designate  any  politi- 
cal or  geographical  relation,  but  only  identity  of  language, 
was  afterwards  appropriated  to  a  definite  region  (when  it 
assumed  the  masculine  gender)  because  the  other  countries 
acquired  proper  names,  and  some  of  them  recovered  their 
ancient  ones,  as  Provence  from  the  Roman  proiniicifi.  The 
name  Langue  d'oui  was  formed  merely  for  a  contrast,  but 
seems  never  to  have  had  any  great  currency,  though  perhaps 
It  may  have  lasted  awhile  in  common  conversation ;  but  it 
was  soon  entirely  lost ;  for  in  this  case  there  was  not  the 
same  need,  which  was  supplied  by  the  general  terms,  France 
and  French,  until  all  submitted  to  one  master,  and  each 
province  retained  its  ovm  name,  which  now  became  more 
definite. 

In  conclusion,  we  once  more  return  to  Dante,  briefly  to 
consider  the  affirmatives  which  he  mentions.  For  the  north 
of  Europe  he  fixes  upon  jo.  This  however  is  evidently  only 
a  Germanic  particle.  It  is  true  that  under  the  snme  head 
he  names  the  Sclavonians;  but  the  Russians  say  da  and  tak, 
the  Poles  tak^  the  Bohemians  ano  and  tak.  Jo  is  found  in 
Otfried,  but  sometimes  also  Ja ;  Ulphilas  has  ja  and  jtii ;  jo 
is  still  used  by  the  Danes  and  Swedes,  and  keeps  its  groimd 
even  in  some  German  dialects.  The  Hollanders  say  ja,  as 
the  modern  Germans,  the  English  yea  and  yea,  Cliaucer  (who 


1 


342 


and  Oyl. 


has  a  surprising  number  uf  German  fonns)  sometimes  uses 
ya  :    the   affinity   of   all   tlicsc   forms   with   one   another,    and 

witli  the  elder  jo  and  jaif  is  sufficiently  close Of  «c  enough 

has  been  ah'eady  said. — Oyl  is  only  another  mode  of  writing 
oui.  The  /  was  dropt  at  the  end,  as  ne7inyl  in  lime  became 
nenni.  Moreover  books  in  old  Frencli  have  Loys  for  Louis, 
but  the  pronunciation  of  the  former  word  was  probably  the 
same  as  that  «>f  the  latter.  I  am  informed  by  people 
personally  acquainted  witli  the  ducal  family  of  Croy^  that 
the  name  is  invariably  pronounced  Crmti :  the  old  sjieUing 
is  always  retained  longest  in  proper  names,  particularly 
those  of  noble  families.  A  family  of  emigrants  in  Germany 
who  spelt  their  name  Mot/^  pronounced  it  Moui.  Kven 
French  grammarians  teach  that  o  before  j,  e.  Sec.  when  it 
is  to  preserve  a  distinct  sound,  and  not  to  be  blended  with 
the  following  vowel,  must  be  pronounced  as  ou.  And  thus 
while  the  ])ronimciacion  remained  the  same,  the  spelling  was 
altered  :  in  the  passage  already  quoted  from  Proisaart,  the 
edition  of  1518  has  Languedoyl.,  that  of  1574,  Langitednity. 

Now  it  is  moreover  remarkable,  that  these  affirmative* 
are  at  the  same  time  copulatives,  signifying  and^  or  perhaps 
more  precisely  also  (aurfi).  This  is  the  case  even  with  the 
Sclavonic  taki  which  in  Polish,  Russ,  and  Bohemian,  like- 
wise signifies  oho,  though  with  a  slight  alteration  (takke^ 
takje).  In  Otfried  jo  (or  joh)  is  used  both  for  yes-,  and  for 
and:  yet  in  the  latter  sense  he  likewise  uses  inti  or  int,  for 
which  reason  some  prefer  explaining  jo  to  mean  also.  In 
Book  I.  ch.  5,  both  particles  occur: 

£rdun  joh  himiles 

Int  alles  HphaftL's 

Scepheri  worolti — 

Gott  gibit  imo  wiha  (Wcihc.  Blessing) 

Joh  ero  filu   hoha. 

In  the  IlCh  chapter  inti  occurs  repeatedly,  yet  we  also 
very  frequently  meet  with  jo  as  a  copulatire.  In  Ulphilas, 
who  uses  the  affirmatives  ja  and  jai<,  the  former  has  likewise 
the  sense  of  ujid  or  aim;  jai  is  only  affirmative.  Mark  15, 
ja  gahaihaifun  alia  haTUM.  ja  gewasidcdun  ina.  ja  atla- 
gidedan    ana    ina.  ja    du/Britnnun   ffoljan   ina.  ja   slohun    i* 


On  Ov  and    Oyl- 

hubit.   Ja    Oispiwan    irta:     and    in    imuibcrless    uther    pas- 
sages. 

When  we  consider  this,  (he  or  uf  the  Provencals  will 
readily  remind  us  of  the  Danisli  og  and  the  Swedish  ocht 
which  means  owrfj  but  is  evidently  the  German  aach:  and 
we  arc  also  reminded  of  the  Goths  who  once  inhabited  the 
siititli  of  FrancL'.  For  tliotigh,  us  we  have  already  t>bserved, 
the  language  of  that  country  sounds  mure  Italian  or  Sponisli, 
is  geograpliically  connected  with  the  latter  language,  and 
betrays  its  affinity  to  the  Latin,  and  its  alienation  from  the 
German,  by  generally  omitting  to  couple  the  j>er8oiial  pro- 
noun with  the  verb:  still  traces  of  the  Teutonic  are  to  be 
found  in  it.  I  shall  only  mention  the  word  Franchiman  for 
northern  Frencli ;  for  it  designates  not  only  the  land  of  oyl^ 
but  also  a  man  who  comes  from  it,  from  Paris  for  instance^ 
who  indued  diflTei's  so  widely  in  language  and  manners  from 
the  man  of  Languedoc,  that  he  deserved  to  be  described 
by  a  peculiar  term.  To  the  same  class  belongs  the  nick- 
name Lanaoman^  a  lubber,  either  from  Landsman  or  Land- 
man. Now  since  there  are  German  words  in  the  language, 
however  small  may  be  their  number,  ocA  or  oc  might  very 
easily  have  made  one  of  them  ;  and  the  old  manner  of  spelling 
was  not  so  wrong  in  ailding  an  h  at  the  end  of  the  Languedoc 
affirmative,  though  it  is  true  that  it  was  afterward  entirely 
dropt  in  ttie  pronunciatiou.  But  the  wcTrd  was  retained, 
not  in  its  original  signification  of  auch,  atnOt  but  in  the 
secondary  one,  yes ;  retained — from  absolutu  need   of  it. 

Just  in  the  same  way  the  later  Latins,  finding  that  the 
old  Roman  repetition  no  longer  answered  their  purpose, 
adopted  a  peculiar  affirmative,  and  this  no  other  than  the 
same  conjunction  ako:  etiam.  Yet  it  occurs  earlier  in  the 
best  authors,  since  there  were  occasions  when  it  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  say  yes  or  no  ;  on  which  subject  I  shall 
only  cite  two  passages  from  Cicero.  Acad.  4.  a2.  "  ut  sequens 
probabilitatem  aut  etiam  aut  non  respondere  posait."  Pro 
Hose.  Com.  3.  Utrum  nomina  digesta  liabes,  an  non?  si 
non,  quomodo  tabulas  conficis  ?  si  etiam,  quamobreni  &c. 
Other  passages  are  produced  by  Forcellini,  and  in  Plautus 
etiam  stands  by  itself  as  an  answer  (Amphit.  I.  3.  46.  nun- 
quid  vis?  Al.  etiam:  ul  oclutum  adveuias) — It  is  un. 
Vol..  n.  No.  5.  X  X 


M 


(>n  Oc  and  Oft 

iltiutiliittty  Mriw  iikmIm  of  fxpn-Aning  uaiatf  lot 

|i»  II  ipiMilliHi,  itiiil   I  Am  (lUo  (if  that  opinion  or  lo 

Olf   t    nim*   illit    ■iii'ti   iin   uct.      Thr   apfdjcstkni  of   the 

>    I'     .  >  .  .    tvluTf    litiToUy    no   maA  ^ttnm   as 

miilAlilv,   j«  iSM^MiJ  Iw    Ac   biatarfj 


ON  THE  KINGS  OF  ATTICA  BEFORE    THESEUS. 


£vERv  one  who  ba»  endeavoured  to  form  for  himself 
a  cli'or  idea  of  Greek  history  and  to  estimate  its  evidence, 
must  have  felt  himself  perplexed  to  determine  the  relation 
in  which  the  heroic  a^3  stand  to  the  historical.  Tlie  Greeks 
themselves,  indeed,  for  a  long  time  felt  no  such  perplexity ; 
they  received  in  simple  faith  the  legends  of  their  mythology, 
and  never  doubted  that  their  kings  and  nobles  were  descended 
from  the  gods^  that  their  temples  had  lieen  founded,  their 
hills,  rivers  and  eitie»  named,  their  ancient  rites  and  customs 
introduced  by  an  ancient  race,  whose  close  afiinity  with  the 
gods  enabled  them  to  accomplish  what  would  have  been  im- 
possible to  mere  mortals.  To  them  the  mythic  age  appeared 
to  be  separated  by  no  wide  gulph  from  the  khtoric ;  believing 
their  divinities  still  to  interpose  in  human  affairs,  the  only 
diiference  was,  that  what  was  a  rare  occurrence  in  their 
own  times  had  been  an  event  of  every  day  in  the  heroic 
age.  Even  those  who  might  doubt  of  tlie  supernatural  part 
of  the  story  never  called  in  question  the  existence  of  the  per- 
sonages themselves  whose  names  fdled  the  early  annals  of 
every  Grecian  state. 

The  moderns  reject  of  course  all  that  is  supernatural 
from  the  history  of  the  heroic  times,  and  many  of  them  seem 
to  have  flattered  themselves  that  by  so  doing,  and  supplying 
the  place  of  the  divine  macliinery  thus  withdrawn,  by  the 
human  machinery  of  means  and  motives,  they  could  convert 
mythology  into  very  passable  history.  Allowing  them  to 
make  these  additions  however,  as  a  necessary  liberty  for  an 
historian,  whose  building  would  advance  slowly  if  be  were 
not  permitted  to  make  mortar  as  well  as  to  collect  stones, 
we  may  at  least  claim   to  enquire   strictly  into   ihe  evidence 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 

of  what  is  professedly  related  on  ancient  authority.  We 
shall  Cud  upon  examination  that  for  the  heroic  n^  this  au- 
thority h  far  less  than  the  faith  with  wliich  its  history  has 
been  received  would  have  led  us  to  expect.  It  is  a  strikJDj^ 
circumstance  that  in  going  back  into  Attic  history  for  ex- 
ample*, with  which  we  have  hero  more  immediately  to  do^ 
we  scarcely  find  half  a  dozen  facts  recorded  from  the  legis- 
lation of  Draco  to  the  death  of  Codrus,  hut  that  we  no 
sooner  reach  llie  times  of  Theseus  and  liis  predecessors,  tha^ 
information  flows  in  upon  us  in  a  torrent.  History  sponta- 
neously offers  us  far  more  than  we  should  ever  have  thought 
of  asking  at  her  hands ;  curiosity  is  gratified  not  oidy  with 
an  account  of  changes  of  dynasties,  wars,  invasions,  mutual 
slaughters  and  exiles,  hut  with  minute  details  of  family 
anecdotes  and  gallant  adventures.  But  as  sudden  wealth 
sometimes  leads  to  the  suspicion  of  forgery,  this  unexpected 
accession  to  the  stores  of  histbrv  will  make  the  cautious  critic 
only  look  more  narrowly  for  the  stamp  of  genuineness'.  His 
suspicions  will  Iw  more  easily  excited  than  allayed.  Con- 
teinporory  authority  is  out  of  the  question ;  there  is  a 
dark  interval  of  unknown  length  between  the  supposed  ter- 
mination of  the  heroic  times  and  the  age  of  Homer  and 
Hcsiod ;  if  any  thing  was  composed,  (for  we  must  not  sjieak 
of  writing)  in  this  interval,  it  liad  perished  before  the 
coramencenient  of  the  historical  times.  Had  we  even  pos- 
sessed the  works  of  (he  bards  who  before  nomer  em- 
ployed mythology  as  the  material  of  their  epics,  since  the 
essential  character  of  the  poet  is  to  make,  we  should  still 
have  been  at  a  loss  to  know  how  much  they  had  made 
and  how  much  they  had  taken  from  historical  sources,  llut 
in  fact  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  a  single  line  of 
the  antehomeric  poets  was  preserved  even  to  the  times  of 
the  eyelid,  much  less  to  the  age  in  which  prose  writers  be- 
gan to  systematize  mythology  and  connect  it  with  liistory. 

Our  belief  then   that  the  story  of  the  heroic  times  is  in 
the  main  historical,   must   arise  from   our  confidence  in  the 

'  Uffil  iiiv  t£p  ictt9'  t\itat  ytytrfiftivtav  ^vin  HtcfufiivrxTa  Xiyvimin  -wtrraTti- 
Tcirt  liyai'-fitBa,    "wrpl    /■»    tww   wakanov    Toi^    pi>T«i    iit^ioitTat   dndavatTa-rcvt   mlvai 

TOM  <U6»  lUm  ti¥ifio»ri-ta6m  it»  Tatrai.rtai'.   Kphoni*.   Marx.  p.  fil. 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  AtHca.  847 

power  of  tradition  to  preserve  it ;  tradition  distinct  from 
poetry,  and  probably  not  5tretigthene<i  or  steadio<l  by  any 
use  of  the  art  of  writing  for  historical  or  chronological  pur- 
poses. There  is  an  illusive  vagiicncRs  in  the  word,  wliich 
makes  it  necessary  to  fix  more  exactly  what  is  meant  by  it 
in  the  present  enquiry.  The  whole  matter  of  fact  which  is 
implied,  when  we  say  that  there  was  a  tradition  of  certain 
things  in  any  age  or  country,  is  that  a  belief  in  their  reality 
prevailed ;  but  by  a  fallacy  which  Mr  Bcntham  sliould  have 
placed  in  hts  list,  we  g<J  on  to  infer  that  this  belief  was 
hnnded  down  from  a  preceding  age.  Now  though  it  may 
bo  thought  that  Niebuhr*  has  expressed  himself  too  strongly 
when  he  says  of  a  belief  of  this  sort  "  they  that  would  in- 
troduce it  need  but  tell  people  roundly  that  it  was  what  their 
forefather*  knew  and  believed,  only  the  belief  was  neglected 
and  sank  into  oblivion,"  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  what 
was  at  first  the  hvjxithesis  of  an  antiquary  or  the  Itetion  of 
a  poet  becomes  in  a  generation  or  two  a  venerable  tradition. 
Though  the  title  was  originally  batl  its  defect  is  cured  by 
length  of  po.^sc88ion.  Even  if  it  were  admitted  therefore, 
that  the  whole  history  of  the  heroic  ages  was  believed  to 
be  true  by  the  Greeks,  we  should  not  be  aiithnri/e<l  to  re- 
ceive it  as  true,  because  wc  know  nut  how  high  a  real  tra^ 
dition  reached,  nor  consequently  how  far  this  faith  waa 
reasonable. 

There  is  little  satisfaction,  however,  in  sucli  general  and 
negative  conclusions,  and  they  ore  only  mentioned  here,  that 
no  one  who  has  hitherto  received  the  heroic  history  of  Greece 
as  real,  on  the  nutliority  of  poets  and  common  books  of  his- 
tory, may  suppose  that  he  has  historical  ground  for  liis  Ijelief, 
and  regard  it  as  an  act  of  wanton  scepticism  to  suggest  a 
doubt  respecting  it.  The  only  course  which  can  lead  to  any 
ufieful  result  is  to  examine  minutely  some  portion  of  this 
allegetl  history,  and  see  what  marks  of  reality  or  invention 
can  be  found  in  it.  The  conclusion  at  whicli  I  have  arrived 
18,  that  the  whole  series  of  Attic  kings  who  are  said  to  have 
preceded  Theseus  are  fictions,  owing  their  existence  to  mis- 
nnderstoml    names,    and    false    etymologies,    to   attempts   to 

■  Hist,  of  Rome,  Vol.  i.  p.  tni. 


4 


On  the  Early  Kingt  of  Attica. 


explain  ancient  customs  and  religious  ritc»  and  to  exalt  the 
antiquity  of  a  nutiou  or  a  family  by  giving  it  a  founder  in 
a  remote  age.  There  is  nothing  absolutely  new  in  such  a 
judgement  of  the  heroic  history  of  Athens,  but  though  doubts 
have  been  expressed  and  explanations  suggested  respecting^ 
particular  parts  of  it,  I  am  not  aware  that  they  have  been 
extcnde<i  to  the  whole  or  exhibited  in  a  regular  form.  Such 
a  connected  view  however  is  particularly  necessary,  in  an 
inquiry  where  much  is  conjectural}  because  repeated  coinci- 
dences may  give  a  high  probability  even  to  conjectures. 
When  the  die  repeatedly  shews  Uie  same  face,  we  begin  to 
think,  that  something  more  steady  than  accident  guides  its  fall. 

At  the  head  uf  the  list  of  Attic  kings  is  commonly  placed 
Ogyges  or  Ogygus.  The  evidence  of  his  historical  existence 
is  so  slight  that  wc  should  be  justified  in  passing  over  hia 
name  without  further  remark.  "  We  have  no  flssurancc,~* 
says  Mr  Mitford,  **  that  even  the  name  of  Ogyges  was  known 
to  the  older  Grecian  authors.  He  is  not  mentioned  by  Hesiod, 
Homer,  Ilerndotus,  Tlmcydides,  Plato,  Aristotle,  or  even 
Strabo,  to  all  of  whom  appaiently  he  must  have  occurred 
as  an  object  of  mention,  had  his  story  been  at  all  known  in 
iheir  limes,  or  at  least  had  it  had  any  credit."  Hist,  of 
Greece,  ch.  i.  sect.  3.  Fully  agreeing  with  Mr  Mitford  in 
his  conclusion,  I  nevertheless  think  it  desirable  to  inquire 
into  the  circumstances  which  led  to  Ogyges'  being  placed 
at  the  heatl  of  the  Attic  kings.  There  is  little  arbitrary 
fiction  in  mythology,  and  though  Ogyges,  in  the  character 
of  a  king,  be  a  recent  addition  to  Athenian  history,  the  name 
Ogygiau  is  found  in  the  oldest  remains  of  the  Greek  language. 

'Q71/7UX  is  commonly  explained  as  meaning  ap-xalmt  and 
if  this  corresponded  with  any  known  root  in  Greek,  or  if  all 
the  other  uses  could  be  reaotved  into  tliis,  we  should  have 
concluded  that  the  name  Ogyges  only  alluded  to  the  anti(]uity 
ascriljed  to  this  sovereign,  the  earliest  ruler  of  Attica.  But 
what  propriety  would  there  then  be  in  the  name  'ilyvyitj 
applied  to  the  island  in  which  Calypso  detained  Ulysses  and 
which  u  not  represented  as  distinguished  by  antiquity  above 
other  islands  f*  The  real  root  is  probably  yvyt\  signifying 
night  or  darkness  Tvyait}  vv^,  ij  oKoretv*)'  Hesychius.  That 
the  tv  in  the  longer  form  is  mcrclv  prothetif  and  no  part  of 


Ofi  the  Early  Kings  of  AtCica. 

the  root  is  rendered  probable  by  analogy  and  by  the  vari- 
ation in  the  prefixed  letter.  Thus  we  have  in  Hesychius 
eywyvovi  afy)^a'iov,  in  the  corresponding  passage  of  Suidas 
explained  by  'iiyvyiov.  "  Lex.  Reg.  MS.  'E7w7ior  icnt  Q71I- 
•yioy,  apyaiov.  Cyrill.  Lex.  MS.  \lyvyiov-  ap-^atov-"  Al- 
berti  ad  loc.  '07i»7ia  fieXrj  Hesyeh.  where  I  believe  we 
should  rend  'Oyvyia,  fieXavi^  a  form  which  Hesychlus  else- 
where uses.  Optpvaia,  ffKOTci*'*).  fieKav^.  In  many  words 
the  o  is  a  mere  euphonic  prefix,  as  we  perceive  by  a  com- 
pari»on  of  uther  words  of  the  same  family^.  Thus  ofiptfUK 
is  evidently  connected  with  /3/m  used  as  an  intensive,  with 
PpiM09  and  ^pSv^  \  oficXo^  is  the  same  word  as  /3eAos  which 
is  connected  with  the  root  /3a\X(u.  So  in  the  case  of  the 
double  forms  wceXXw,  KeWw  (Lat.  celer  Gr.  iteXij?):  o^vpwi 
oipta'.  oa-Kairrw,  Hes.  oKairria  {ffxatpoi  cavus):  oKpvoei^  and 
Kpuoe'i^  (crudelis)  :  the  0  apjiears  to  be  no  part  of  the  root. 
So  opeyw  is  clearly  the  Latin  rego  to  make  strait,  0^70^01 
in  the  middle  voice  signifying  to  desire,  as  we  naturally 
stretch  ourselves  towards  and  make  straight  for  that  which 
we  wish  to  possess.  Tlie  prefixed  o  is  sometimes  inter- 
changed with  e.  What  in  common  Greek  was  o^s  was  in 
jEolic  eSovt  but  the  Latin  dens  and  the  German  zahn  show 
that  the  vowel  is  not  radical.  The  grammarians  generally 
suppose  an  aphsresis  of  the  o  or  e,  but  the  tendency 
of  language  is  to  add  a  letter  before  a  consonant  at  the 
beginning  to  facilitate  pronunciation.  *'  Letters  like  sol- 
diers," says  Home  Tooke,  "  are  very  apt  to  desert  and  drop 
off  in  a  long  march ;"  but  on  the  other  hand  idle  recruits  are 
sometimes  picked  up  by  the  way.  It  is  remarkable  that  just 
the  same  change  has  token  ^lace  in  the  word  XiKvyiwv.  tXKO- 
Tfivwv  Hes.  of  which  tlie  root  Is  clearly  Xvyrj-  \vktos  o/t/ia 
\vyaia%  Iph.  T.  lit).  The  o  was  necessarily  changed  into  w, 
because  071/7109  could  not  enter  into  heroic  verse.  The 
sense  of  ''dark"  suits  very  well  the  Homeric  application  of 
the  name  'Qyvy'tri  to  the  island  of  Calypso.  It  was  situated 
on  the  furthest  verge  of  the  West,  the  region  of  the  evening 
shades.  The  name  of  the  goddess  KaXiri^oJ  (>faXi/irTa»)  shews 
her  to  have  been  originally  a  being  presiding  over  darkness ; 


>  8tr&bo  colli  the  lut  ktiig  of  Achola  (1.  p.  AM.  Ox.)  Ogyges;   Polybiun  1.  3. 
p.  178.  Oyge*. 


d 


350 


On  the  Early  Kings  uj  Mtictt. 


ahe  h  till'  ilaugliter  uf  Atlas,  the  uplu>liler  of  the  hcA-' 
vcns,  who  in  fulfilment  of  his  office  is  variously  placed  by 
[jnythologists  in  the  extreme  East  and  the  remotest  WesCV 
[Where  the  'i}yvyiov  ofxtt  was  situated,  of  which  Apollodorus 
'speaks^  in  the  fragment  preserved  by  Strabo  i.  43'i.  Oxf.,  we 
are  uot  informed ;  but  as  it  is  mentiuued  aluug  with  the  land 
of  the  Gorgons  and  Hespcrides  and  the  Rhipacan  mountains, 
it  was  probably  an  imaginary  chain  of  mountains  on  the 
western  Ixiundary  of  the  world,  which  hid  the  sun  and  caused 
the  darkness,  as  the  Rhipsan  mounluins  did  on  the  North  ^. 
The  name  Vvyrfty  given  to  the  king  of  Lydia,  whose 
wealth  and  power  of  darkenhig  himself,  so  as  to  become  in- 
visible, remind  us  su  strunglv  of  the  NVtehtn^hort  and  the 
Tnnikappe  of  the  Northern  }>oem,  is  probably  derived  from 
the  same  root.  The  story  of  what  passed  between  him  and 
Candaulcs  (Her.  i.  8.  12)  seems  to  have  had  a  mythological 
origin,  although  Herodotus,  or  those  who  had  told  the  talc 
before  him,  have  contrived  to  give  it  su  much  the  air  of  a 
court  anecdote.  Vuyij%  is  also  the  name  of  one  of  the  three 
children  of  Oupavo^  and  r5»  Hes.  Theog.  119. 

The   ideas  of  darkness   and    antiquity   are  closely   con- 
nected; 

ambagibuB  cevi 

Obtcgitur  densa  caligine  mersa  vetttstas.  Sil.  11.  viii.  44. 
and  hence  'iiyCyio^  might  easily  come  to  signify  ap^attK  and 
be  applied  to  an  ancient  king,  of  whom  nothing  more  was 
.  known  ihau  that  he  was  ancient.  But  I  Ix'lievc  the  origin 
of  the  king  ''Qyvyoi  to  l>e  different.  Pausanias  .say^>  (Attic. 
[.  38)  that  the  people  of  Eleusis  alleged  their  city  to  have 
been  founded  by  a  hero  Eleusia^  whom  some  made  the  son 

*  Klpm}  (tcffiKoi  circa*  circiiluti}  »ceni9  lo  lie  oritciiiully  n  rrprCKOitstive  of  the 
"  circle  bouudiiiK  curtfa  «0(1  skies,"  the  lioiimn ;  her  abode  therefore  U  variously  placed 
iu  Ucaperia  or  Colchu. 

*  The  I'pithcc  t^yvyuk  U  applied  hj  /Ruchyluii  Eumtn.  1030  to  the  earth ;  xmfmtTw 
ydt  iiri  KBuSttxiv  tiyvyiutaif  with  which  the  BrrMO  of  "WarJlc"  suits  as  well  as  with  tho 
water  of  Styx  He«.  Tbeag.  HOA.  of  which  the  nourrc  is  thus  described,  woWdv  i4 
ff  irwA  X^ovit  tiifivaOrittf  '££  Itpov  irurjifiaio  pMt  iiti  fvKTo  ^tc'Xotvav,  'itneayoht 
M>av.  The  last  words  explain  the  u»e  of  Oymos  of  the  waler  of  Styx  (Parthcniua  ' 
Sf  Htcpli.  Hy».  'Qycvat)  withoiii  implying  ftiiy  ctwincitifia  between  'ayiyw**  aiid 
•QytDot.  The  conliisimi  of  OgygKH  with  the  Jupiter  Orim  of  the  CariwiB,  producotl 
the  genealogy  mentioned  by  Sicph.  Byi.  'Uyi^iu  by  which  he  was  made  tlie  sou  of 
ToiBfln.    ytpftlXti  was  tlic  old  name  of  the  Lyclann,  llcrod.  7.  91. 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica.  SSI 

of  Mercury  and  Daira,  others  the  son  of  Ogygus.  Now 
though  Ogygus  may  have  been  of  recent  introduction  into  Attic 
history,  he  appears  really  to  have  belonged  to  the  old  legends 
of  Boeotia  (Pau&.  ix.  5.  1.)  and  the  epithet  of  Ogygian  Thehes 
and  the  name  of  the  Ogygian  gate  were  derived  from  his  sup- 
posed rule.  Bceotia  was  the  country  from  which  the  £leu»inian 
religion  proximately  came.  There  was  on  the  borders  of  the 
lake  Copai»  an  Elcusis,  which  the  advance  uf  its  waters  over- 
wheUned  (Paus.  ix.  24.  Strab.  i.  Syi.  Oxf ).  Ceres  and  Pro- 
serpine were  said  to  have  founded  or  occupied  Thebes  (Eur. 
Phcen.  6'9k),  and  when  Eumolpus  is  called  a  Thracian,  the 
Thracians  of  Boeotia  are  to  be  understood ".  It  was  from  this 
connexion  of  Ogvges  with  the  Eleustnian  rites  that  he  was 
represented  as  the  father  of  VXpa^ilUrj  (Steph.  Byz.  Mpayoi) 
an  Orphic  name  of  Proserpine  (Orph.  H.  28.  5.  Arg.  31  *.)  To 
the  connexion  of  Ogygcs  with  these  rites  I  should  also  refer 
Pind.  Ncm.  6.  73.  aijKioi^  ^'X/ouktoc  vir  myvyioK  op€<Tt.  Ce- 
lese,  which  was  close  tn  Phlius,  (Paus.  S.  14)  was  a  great  seat 
of  the  Eleusinian  worship.  Heyne's  interpretation  of  wyu^ 
yifHi  ap^ct  "jam  olini  nota**  is  very  tame  and  unpoctic. 

The  ])r<)priety  of  connecting  the  establishment  of  the 
worship  of  the  Qeol  yQovtot  with  a  personage  whose  name 
when  examined  means  only  dark^  is  obvious.  Their  rites 
were  celebrated  in  the  night.  **  Frumenti  satio  apud  Elcu- 
sina  a  Triptolenio  reperta  est;  in  cujus  muneris  honorcm 
nodes  initiorum  sacralie"  Just.  2.  6.  and  whetlier  we  con- 
sider thdr  physical  import,  as  denoting  the  burial  of  the 
seed,  or  their  moral  association  >vith  tlie  unseen  world,  the 
idea  of  darkness  is  inseparable  from  them.  It  may  couBnn 
the  interpretation  now  given,  to  point  out  some  other  in- 
stances iu  which  mythological  fictions  have  been  influenced 
by   the  same  association. 

Whether  *Op(peu<i  he  derived  from  'Op(j>tKa.  or  vice  versa, 

*  Eumolpus  ii  said  ApoUod.  3,  I  A,  3>.  4  to  hive  come  with  his  son  Ismanu  lo 
Tegxrias  Ung  of  the  Thmciims.     Tegyn  wu  ■  lown  lii  B<polil^  iilqih.  Bjt. 

^  The  mnic  Is  explainwl  (Hes.  t.  voc.)  tivwp  tiXm  htt-n'Oilaa  Tate  tc  Xryviiivon 
kbI  ■wfia-rTafUvoi\  but  It  more  proliAbljr  memns  "exoctnu  of  justice,"  an  epithet  which 
wcU  suits  thr  ofBcc  of  Prnscqiire,  as  a  gnddns  of  the  unseen  world.  'i*he  nitmc  SMIiu 
to  have  bcra  civen  to  (be  l-'urics  (Paus.  9.  32)  but  dicy  alM  were  gotldcsMS  of  the 
earth  (m«  jGsch.  Kutn.  WM^  ijnotcd  nbovc).  llcnceCcics  was  called  'E^xyv^t  (Paul. 
B.  33.) 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  Yy 


m 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Miiea. 


kiMiairH  lii«  Mip|>a8Ctl  existence  to  the  rites  of  darkness  yrhtt 
'tl»»  Tunne  ilcsi-ribes.  The  root  is  found  in  op<ftvrjy  cKarla.  iwf 
H.i\ntya  Hch.  in  optpavo^  (orbus,  opipo^  with  digamma  fur- 
v»*)  a  child  or  parent  wearing  black  garments,  perhaps  in 
\ifiwa.  'EiHVMv^.  Hes.  His  descent  into  the  infernal  regions 
to  rcK-Hivor  his  wife  V-t/pv^iiajf  whose  name  may  be  of  the  same  ^ 
imjHirt  with  Upa^i^lKyi,  belongs  to  the  same  circle  of  ideas  as 
t\w  Kcnrtrh  of  Ceres  for  her  vanished  daughter;  Ids  beinjp 
lorn  to  pieces,  to  the  fable  of  Bacchus  2aypevs  (Atxypevv 
hil^oi)  wht'thor  this  primiu-ily  referred  to  the  frenzied  wild- 
lU'ss  of  the  orgies  in  which  the  victim  was  torn  to  pieces, 
or  to  the  disintegration  of  the  seed  in  the  earth.  The  Orphic, 
BicrlnV  nnd  Eleusinian  religions,  though  specifically  dif- 
Kerent  nrv  in  kind  and  origin  the  same*.  Caucon,  the  founder 
of  the  mysteries  of  Ceres  and  Proserpine  at  Messcne,  is  made 
a  ton  of  KeXaiJ'<K'  Paus.  4.  I.  The  name  of  KeXeoc  connected 
with  the  Kleusinian  rites  had  probably  a  similar  origin;  so 
KeXturfti  was  made  by  one  fabulist  the  mother  of  AcX^mk* 
nUuding  to  the  worship  of  Bacchus  on  Parnassus;  while 
another  assigned  to  him  Bvia  as  liis  mother  and  a  third 
made  him  the  son  of  MiXatva  P&us.  10.  6.  Other  instances 
arc  less  obvious.  The  mythologists  tell  us  (Apoll.  1.  9) 
that  rieXta^  derived  his  name  from  his  face  being  blackened 
by  the  kick  of  a  horse,  when  he  was  exposed  as  an  infant 
with  his  bnither  Neleus.  There  are  however  strong  traces 
ill  the  history  of  Pclias  of  a  connexion  with  the  same  rites 
whence  'Op^vv  derived  his  mythological  existence.  The 
cutting  up  of  Peliaa  by  his  daughters  is  the  same  story  as 
that  of  the  discerption  of  Orpheus.  The  descent  of  his 
daughter  Alcestis  to  the  infernal  regions  and  her  rescue  by 
Hercules,  is  only  anotlier  form  of  the  adventure  of  Orpheus 
and  Eurydicc;  but  Admetus  who  is  properly  the  infernal 
god  (sec  Midler  Proleg.  p.  306.     Doner.  1.  SSO.  Germ.)  has 


PflUA,  3,  14. 

*  Th«  ffpltJiot  of  NwrtXiof  wkt  given  to  Bftocbaa  apcdaUy  In  reference  to  the 
toyMlml  doctrine  of  hli  bebgr  ^ora  to  pient  uid  recvmipMed  lx>beck  A^Uoph.  713. 
Thfl  immc  nt  lAtiet  iipjilieJ  liy  ihe  Lnlins  projwrly  to  ihc  x'^''"^'*^  ^lowtrot  and  Liber* 
to  I'nMrrplno  ■Mmnri'  probably  derived  fWwn  Xl/^p^fv,  ruffTtivav  Hcs.  (whence  Mfivn) 
than  fVoni  X^tfiM.  Tlip  Unmanfi  seemed  to  hAvc  Cklleil  tbcii  chUdicn  lUtcri  in  hooour 
nf  ihf  jFOuibful  itcltlM  KiifMii  and  K.6fi^ 


On  the  Early  Kings  uf  JU'wa. 


868 


been  changed  into  a  king,  the  mortal  husband  of  Alcestis. 
The  signification  of  Ny/Xci/s  is  probably  ihc  sonio,  for  in 
mythology  bi-others  frequently  represent  the  same  idea:  *-Xa 
was  an  old  Greek  root  for  light,  whence  rtt'Xioy,  ueKat,  treK^fTj, 
ctXi;  and  NijXct/v  is  derived  from  it  by  the  same  negative  pre- 
fix as  ii/Xerfv  from  eXeoy'**.  From  the  same  root  and  not  the 
Hebrew  ^3  1  should  deduce  NclXof  which  lueout  black, 
whether  it  were  so  called  from  the  black  Ethiopians  among 
whom  it  rose  (Paus.  8.  24)  or  because  "  ^ICgyptum  nigra 
foDcundat  arena"  Virg,  Georg.  4.  syi.  ^ AfivQatav  the  brother 
of  Pelias  and  NeJcus  is  probably  only  an  epithet ;  MeXaVirovf, 
in  whose  name  tlicrc  is  the  liame  allusiun  to  the  rites  of  dark- 
ness, was  the  reputed  liierophant  of  the  Egyptian  myste- 
ries", possessing  like  Proteus  the  power  of  changing  him- 
into  any  Hha{ie  that  be  pleiused. 

In  tlie  dark  faced  Felops,  for  this  is  the  meaning  of 
the  name  llcXa^/,  I  think  we  may  discern  another  trace  of 
the  same  religion,  referred  indeed  not  to  Throoc  like  that 
which  Ogj'ges  and  Orpheus  represent,  nor  to  Phccnicia  and 
Egypt  like  that  of  Mclampuu,  but  to  Phrygia.  The  differ- 
ence however  ia  not  material,  for  the  Phrygian  warship  of 
the  earth,  under  the  character  of  the  great  niullier,  was  essen- 
tially the  same  as  llie  Thracian,  probably  in  origin  the  same. 
It  is  of  no  importance  to  inquire  here  whether  the  traces  of 
this  religion  in  the  mythological  history  of  Argos,  arose  from 
a  real  colonization  from  Phrygia,  or  from  a  connexion  between 
the  iwpulatiou  of  Greece  and  Asia  IVLinor,  preceding  all  his- 
torical records.  My  purpose  is  only  to  jwint  out  these 
traces  and  on  the  gruund  uf  them  to  as&igu  to  Pelo])S 
a  mythical,  iiibtead  of  the  historical  character  which  he 
has  hitherto  sustained.  Tantalus,  the  father  of  Pelops 
is  said  to  have  disclosed  the  mysteries  of  the  gods,  Euduc. 
Viol.  p.  390.  Sehol.  Lycophr.  155.  The  story  of  the  caldrou 
and  the  division  of  the  body  is  that  of  Orpheus   and  Pelias 


I*  There  were  two  riven  in  Eiiba>a  rallci)  Ki/xvi  and  NiXeik  or  NqXr^  Scnibo  x. 
p.  AM.  0\.  the  Kip*!'^'  niiule  ihe  nheep  whi(e,  the  Ni|X«i'i<blftck.  Ki/iot  or  h.tf>ftoi  is  « 
liffhi  or  bright  colour,  9UL'h  mi  Out  of  while  wtoe  or  white  grapcH,  or  fUunc  ;  ihiH  iite 
uf  Nft\«u«  jtlaceii  beyond  tlitubt  l)ie  c%i>tjiiut(ion  of  ihe  nunc  givm  in  the  tcxi.  A  river 
ill  lltroliB  was  rallcrl  Mo1a»  rrom  tlii'  xaine  (luoliiy  Din.  2.  103. 

11  £ndor.  Viel.  p.  ?flK.  7-     Hrrml.  3.  AM. 


854  On  the  Earfy  Kings  of  JUiea. 

repented;  the  devouring  of  the  shoulder*  which  it  is  to  be 
observed  was  the  act  of  Ceres,  has  arisen  from  a  misinterpre- 
tation of  the  mystical  tafiotpayia^  the  restoration  by  Hhea 
connects  the  whole  story  with  the  worship  of  this  Asiatic 
goddesB.  These  fictions  are  not  only  absurd,  but  absolutely 
unaccountable,  if  we  consider  Pelops  as  the  real  son  of  a 
Lydian  or  Phrygian  prince,  leading  nn  army  into  Greece 
and  establishing  a  monarchy  at  Mycente ;  but  they  are  ea&ily 
explicable,  if  considered  as  resulting  from  an  attempt 
give  an  historical  air  to  the  misunderstood  traces  of  a  nearly! 
obliterated  mytlius.  The  names  QvefTTfj-it" AtylaOoit  AepoTnj, 
eeem  to  be  all  connected  with  the  same  religious  system. 
Owetrrn?,  in  whose  story  the  cutting  up  and  partial  devour- i 
ing  of  Pelops  i»  reproduced,  is  like  Thyotes,  the  priest  of  i 
the  Samothradan  mysteries  (Val.  Flace.  Arg.  S.  437)  a  Mfteri- 
ficer  i  My'KrQo^^  {aty'Xeiv.  liaav^v  Bekk.  Anecd.  S57.  89) 
one  who  tears  to  pieces ;  Xcpoin)  {aipto^)  the  dark ;  and 
though  I  am  aware  how  hazardous  an  etymology  must  be, 
which  assumes  the  existence  of  a  root  no  longer  found  in  the 
Greek,  I  am  much  inclined  to  believe  that  'At/kvv  is  syno- 
nymous with  ^e'Xo^/^  and  that  its  root  is  the  Latin  ater^.     \ 

'*  Ttfioriat  whom  ont  account  (P*ui.  3. 33)  xatAt  \he  ton  nf  Tanaluii,  another  hi» 
fatlier  (Pmis.  2.  S2)  ia  a  name  aUauve  to  the  bloody  (^porot)  sacrilice.  IMiitlcr  calls 
Niobe  "  ein  dunU««  \V««Ji,"  uad  both  her  nature  m&  the  «yiuoloBy  of  ihc  oanie  arc 
obscurr.  1  tliink  it  mo«t  probable  ttiat  ahe  rrprcaentod  the  cultivated  eartli,  and  that 
the  name  in  connected  -mMh  vfutc  (Od.  c.  137)  as  ^vpavtCt  with  tpifi*;  <popd.  The 
moamiof;  of  Earth  for  her  duldreti  U  a  natural  and  beautiful  exprcwion  dlbcr 
of  the  desolation  of  vintcr,  an  event  varioiuily  typified  in  the  Asiatic  religions,  or 
of  some  sudden  calamity,  nucb  ait  an  eaithcjuake.  The  nainc  and  mythus  of  Tan- 
tolu!!  Koeni  to  describe  the  nature  of  the  country  around  Sipylux,  which  wax  Tolcantc, 
and  subjea  to  earthquakea  la  remote  ages  aa  well  as  in  that  of  Tiberius,  irom  whom 
iIlc  MagneUa  a  Siyj/lo,  oa  having  suSered  more  than  others  tecelved  a  large  meaiuie 
of  relief.  Tac.  Ann.  2.  47.  It  wan  in  the  reign  of  Tnntalua  (StraboRfl.  Oxf.)  that 
SipytuK  wait  destroyed  by  an  earthquake.  TairraXClm,  TavBaKilta  are  the  aame  word 
aa  Tovticpti^fw  {Valck.  ad  Amnion.  2.  IP.  Phil  M.  S.  11-1  not.  10)  signifying  to  afitate 
with  a  load  souud.  Conip.  Ilcsych.  iToirroKix^n-  c<rc4cr(>q.  The  trceaof  Tantalus^  the 
fruit  of  which  vuiiflhes  in  the  niomeni  of  )u  being  gntipcd  rcacmble  those  of  the  shores 
of  the  Dead  Sea  which  "  itive  herbi  tenuN  aut  flore  aeu  solitam  in  spcdem  adotevere,  atnt 
ct  inanta  velut  in  cincrcm  vsnescunt."  Tac.  lliet.  A.  J.  Jos.  B.  J.  4.  6.  And  what 
can  be  a  livelier  image  of  a  land,  whose  inhabitants  live  in  perpetual  apprehension  of 
Tolconic  earthquakcA,  than  a  man  over  whose  bead  a  masa  of  Klowiog  rock  is  suspended, 
ever  ready  to  fall  nad  crush  btm ;  which  was  probably  the  original  punishment  of  Tan- 
talus ?  Sehol.  Pind.  OL  1.  01.  Pont,  ad  Eur.  Or.  6.  The  "  fuglcntia  Humina"  belong 
also  to  the  phsriKHncna  of  canhiuakes,  by  which  riTen  oiv  luddaly  cogulfcd.    It  Is 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica.  365 

do  not  pretend  to  explain  all  the  relations  in  wbieh  these  per- 
sons ore  placed  to  each  other,  as  having  a  mythical  meaning, 
much  less  the  connexione  in  which  Pelops  and  his  family  are 
liaid  to  have  Blood  to  other  personages  of  the  heroic  age; 
Buch  additions  and  variations  were  absolutely  necessary  in 
order  to  make  the  original  mythus  into  poetry,  and  much 
more  into  history',  and  therefore  however  numerous  they  may 
be,  tliey  cannot  bring  tlie  mythic  origin  into  doubt.  But 
the  mythical  circumstances  are  such  as  no  poet  nor  historian 
would  have  invented,  and  tliis  character  cannot  be  afrecte<l 
by  any  incongruous  additions  which  have  been  made  to 
them. 

Traces  of  the  early  diffufnon  of  that  Asiatic  religion,  of 
which  Sipylus  was  the  seat,  where  the  legends  of  Tantalus 
and  Niobe  were  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  mother  of 
tlie  gods  {Paus.  5.  13.  3.  22.)  are  found  in  other  parts  of 
Greece.  Niobe  appears  in  the  oldest  legends  of  Sicyon  and 
iEgialeia.  We  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  misled  by 
the  circumstance  that  in  this  connexion  Niobe  is  made  the 
daughter  of  Phoroneus;  other  things  show  clearly  the  Asiatic 
origin  of  the  fable.  Apis  the  brother  of  Niobe  is  said  to  have 
been  murdered  by  Tclchin,  but  the  Telchincs  belonged  to 
the  worship  of  the  mother  of  the  gods,  and  they  were  the  same 
with  the  Idiei  Dactyli  of  Crete  and  Phrygia.  These  the 
author  of  the  ancient  epic  poem  <^opwvi^  calls  (Schol.  Ap. 
Rhod.  1.  1131). 

nira\an.%'Oi  Bcpa-jrovres  opeiiji  ' AoprjffTcltjv- 
but    Adrastea    was    only    another    name   of  Khen,  under   the 
cliuracttT   of   Nemesis,    Haqxwr.    'ASpaaTeiOy    aiitl    from   htr 
the   fountain    Adrastea    (Paus.  2.   15.)   was    named;    and   all 
the  Adrasti  who   appear  in  Argive,  Sicyonian,    Tnijan,   and 


mrioui  lo  look  bach  on  the  hitttory  of  the  fkblc.  There  existed  ft  Ukc  under  Sipylua 
called  (h«  Uke  of  Tantaltu  1.  e.  Uie  Ukc  of  the  earthquake  ;  but  when  the  meaning  of 
(be  word  was  lost,  it  wua  HU[)}>0!H.-d  tu  have  derived  lis  name  from  aa  ancient  king,  whose 
city  had  been  oTcrwhclmeil  aiul  a  lake  formed  in  lu  fttcad.  As  great  calamttica  were 
nmcoivcd  lo  inijily  great  crimes  Mttne  otfencc  must  be  dcrined,  bjr  which  Tiuitaliin  hud 
offetidal  the  god»;  the  rcrelatinn  of  the  m^tileriea  offered  a  ready  explanation,  and 
Ite  was  made  to  suil'cr  in  IIadc»>  what  tho  \o1c&no  and  the  earthquake  hwl  inllktnl  oil 
hb  country,  lleinf;  imcc  tHLiblishcd  an  on  imcicnt  kiti^  of  P1iryi;ia  or  Lydia,  the 
tnccsof  a  vorshlp  allied  to  ibe  I'hrrgtiin  and  Lydiau  were  referred  by  mythnlogiitts 
10  him  and  hit  family. 


356 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 


Lydiaii  history  probably  owed  their  origin  to  the  connexion 
of  her  name  with  the  mythology  of  these  countries.  Niobe 
appears  aUo  in  Thcban  history,  as  the  wife  of  Ampluon. 
A  story  so  widely  diffused  cannot  have  had  its  orij^n  in  the 
fantastic  resemblance  of  the  rocks  of  Sipylus  to  a  weeping 
mother  (Paus.  1.  21);  the  legend  must  have  attached  itself 
to  the  natural  appearance.  The  high  antiquity  of  the 
religion  to  which  the  legend  belonged  is  shewn  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Niube  was  said  to  be  the  first  mortal  by 
whom  Jupiter  had  children  (Apollod.  ii.  1)  and  mother 
of  Argos  and  Fclnsgus;  that  is,  she  was  a  connecting  link 
between  the  Antehellenic  and  Hellenic  mythologies. 

If  the  opinion  of  Payne  Knight,  Voss  and  others  were 
well  founded,  and  all  the  mystical  religions  had  been  intro- 
duced into  Greece  subsequently  to  the  time  of  Homer,  these 
conjectures  and  assimilations  must  fall  to  the  ground.  But 
I  cannot  believe  that  such  a  change  as  the  intrmUiction  of 
this  remarkable  class  of  rites  could  have  taken  place  after 
the  Homeric  age,  and  that  every  kind  of  historic  evidence 
respecting  it  sliould  liavc  disappeared,  imd  their  whole  insti- 
stittitiou  have  been  referred  to  the  times  before  Homer,  aud 
generally  to  the  very  earliest  times.  That  Bacchus  and  Cerea, 
the  chief  deities  of  these  mystical  religions,  were  known  to 
Homer,  appears  from  passages  in  his  writings  of  which  the 
authenticity  cannot  be  reasonably  questioned.  The  symbo- 
lical and  scmibarbarous  character  which  belonged  to  them 
mode  them  unBt  to  bear  a  part  among  the  agents  in  the 
Iliad,  and  it  may  be  true  that  a  great  profiortion  of  the 
fables  by  whicli  the  two  religions  were  interwoven  originated 
after  the  Homeric  age.  It  is  probable  too  that  tlie  growing 
prevalence  of  the  Hellenic  mythology  gave  in  great  measure 
to  these  rites  of  an  earlier  and  ruder  religion  their  mystical 
character;  the  orgies  with  which  some  of  them  were  accom- 
panied led  tlie  worsliippcrs  to  withdraw  themselves  from  the 
observation  of  the  magistrate,  and  the  secret  solemnity  with 
which  otiiers  were  |>erformed  impressed  the  imagination  with 
a  profound  religious  awe,  which  neither  tlie  poetry  of  Homer 
nor  the  statuary  of  Pliidios  could  equal.  But  it  is  time  to 
return  to  the  scries  of  Attic  kings,  the  second  of  whom  is 
Cccrops,      I  regard  him  as  being  in  genuine  Attic  fable  the 


A 


On  the  Earftf  A'ifi^s  of  Attica. 


first ;  the  true  avT6x'^<*>v  from  whom  according  to  the  popular 
faith  the  Attic  people  had  their  origin.  The  story  of  his 
being  St^u^y  half  man  half  serpent,  is  only  an  expression  of 
his  autochthonia  Herod,  i.  78.  where  the  explanation  given 
by  the  TelmesBians  of  the  serpents  devoured  by  horses  at 
Sardes  is  o<pn'  elvai  ytj^  Troi^'a'*.  The  story  of  his  leading 
a  colony  from  Sais  in  Egypt  to  Athens  and  the  Egyptian 
origin  of  tlie  Athenians,  notwithstanding  the  tirm  footing 
which  it  has  gained  in  our  histories  is  a  comparatively  late 
invention.  In  the  time  of  Solon'*  indeed  the  priests  of  Sais 
maintained  that  the  Minerva  of  Athens  and  their  Neith  were 
the  same*  but  instead  of  referring  this  identity  to  a  Saitic 
colony  under  Cecrops,  they  told  him  a  romantic  tale  respecting 
the  Atlantians  and  the  aid  which  the  Athenians  Imd  given  to 
the  Egyptians  when  in  danger  of  falling  under  subjection  to 
them.  Theo]x>mpus  called  the  Athenians  colonists  of  the 
Saitans  or  settlers  among  the  Saitans,  for  there  is  a  doubt 
whether  cTTOtKot  or  aTPolKoi  is  the  true  reading'*;  CalHsthcncs 
and  rhanodemuR  matic  Sais  the  colony;  Diodorus  Athens. 
There  is  then  an  entire  absence  of  pnxif  of  even  a  legend  of 
Egyptian  origin  existing  among  the  Athenians  themselves. 

The  name  KeKpo-^  (KpeKtr^)  appears  to  me  to  \ye  no- 
thing else  than  a  synonyme  of  avro-xOtov.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  TerTcf  or  cicada,  being  supposed  to  be  produced  from 
the  earth,  was  a  symbol  of  autochthonia  among  the  Athenians. 
Schol.  Arist.  Nub.  (J7l.  As  the  eggs  of  this  animal  full  to 
the  ground  from  the  stalks  on  which  they  are  deposited,  Arist. 
H.  An.  5,  24  and  are  hatched  in  great  numbers  in  showery 
weather,  it  was  natural  that  the  vulgar  should  consider  the 
earth  as  producing  tliem.  The  forms  KepKwtrTj  and  KepKWTrutv 
arc  common,  being  derivatives  from  KcpKUf^l/,  one  of  the  names 
of  the  cicada  enumerated  by  TElian  H.  A.  10,  44.  Schneider 
supposes  the  name  to  be  derived  from  Kepxo^,  the  instrument 
by  which  the  perforation  was  made  to  deposit  the  cgfi;:  but 
it  seems  more  probable  that  the  name  was  originally  Kp^Ko^, 

'»  A  variety  of  hxpothcsca  to  account  for  the  epithet  ii4>vifv  may  be  seen  in 
Eudoc  Viol.  K*Kpo\l/,  he  »jiokc  two  limi^iigts  Urcek  uid  E^pdui ;  or  he  changed 
the  nature  of  men  &om  Mvat;c  to  civiiLsed,  or  by  in&tituting  maniage  he  gave  chil- 
dren two  jwrenu  Instead  of  one,  &c. 

"  Plai.  Tiiii.  5  «,  «»  HfftUr  Athcnadlenst  auf  Linduf,  p.  141. 


358 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Aitiea. 


Other  names  of  tins  animnl,  as  XaKfTa*;  (Xaxfu)  a-^era^  ('Jx*"^ 
^a^Koi  (/3a/3a^a))  as  well  as  rerrt^  itself,  refer  to  the  sound 
which  the  animal  emits.  KpcKw  is  the  word  used  of  its 
note  in  an  epigram  of  the  Anthologia  3.  34.  6 

<P$€yyov  Tt  veov  cfv^fMo^ffi  ^vfi<f)att 

Tlaiyvtov,  at^T*i)cov  Vlavt  Kp€K<t)v  xeXaSov. 
That  Cecrops  is  really  nothing  more  than  tlie  cicada, 
the  emblem  of  autochtbonia,  converted  into  the  first  king  of 
Athens,  is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  the  names  of  his 
daughters  rtav^^cKro?,  ^Epcnj,  "AypavXix.  In  mythology  we 
often  find  the  name  of  the  wife,  the  dangler  or  the  son, 
repeating  or  slightly  varying  the  name  or  attributes  of  the 
husband  or  father.  As  the  ancients  supposed  the  cicada  to 
be  produced  from  the  ground,  so  they  tliought  that  it  was 
wholly  nourished  by  the  dew.  'Ava-jrerofieva  Se,  o-rav  ao- 
ptjarf  Ti^  a<i>iaaiv  vypov  otov  vdwp^  o  \eyowjtv  ot  yetopyoT 
w^~-n-p€<po/x€VO)v  TJi  6po(jtp,     Arist.  ubi  s. 

yioKapi^ofiev  ffc  Temf 

'Ot£  oevZpewv  ex'  OKpayv 

OX'iyrjv  opoaoy  ireiratKtus 

Bao'tA.ei)?  oTrws-  deiSets-  Anacr. 
and  to  the  same  purpose  many  well  known  passages  of  the 
classics.  Hence  the  names  T[avSpo<ro9  9yid''Ep<rtj-  ''AypavXo^ 
(6eld  piper),  for  so  and  not  "AyXavptu  the  name  should  be 
written  :  Heyno  Apoll.  iii.  14.  2,  is  a  name  equally  appropriate 
to  the  cicada,  of  whose  music  the  ancients  thought  so  highly, 
that  it  was  doubted  whether  the  lonians  did  not  wear  the 
golden  cicada  in  their  liair  in  honour  of  Apollo.  Schol.  Nub. 
ubi  sup  ""'.  The  name  ''AypavXoi  is  susceptible  of  another  ety- 
mology, *'  lodging  in  the  field,'"  which  is  also  appropriate  to 
the  cicada  ",  and  her  name  and  that  of  her  sisters  have  lieen 
interpreted,  as  if  they  presided  over  agriculture,  Stei)h.  Hyz. 
'AypavXr].     Such  an  interpretation  might  easily    arise  wlien 


**  'Ax*?*!*  TrfrriE,  ifiov€fiaTt  arayovtefi  ftt&virdth 

Aypovofiov  n^XiTdt  JHoitrav  tpti)io\d\ov.    Anih.  S.  34,  Q. 
"  So  the  dcodn  ts  callrd  -ru  «u-r'  apovpav  dtiiovi.     lb.  8. 
'ZnptKit  tvrdfMTitio  it   {^vot  tfx^«  ^oWrfk 
Trr-nf  oior6fioi%  -nprviripov  yAwM,     II*.  7- 
It  WM  probably  from   ihe  ott/oeAMonla  of  Cecrops   thai  the  cjihcbl   tt  Alhem 
used  to  swear  In  the  teii)|)le  of  Agraultu  inrtpnaxt'^v  axp^  Otivti-rvit  ti'h  VtM^/uftivix. 
PetllLcg.  AU.331.  WoM. 


i 


r 


Ofi  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 


the  real  natiiro  of  Cecropa  was  forgotten  ;  but  when  the  whole 
fable  is  viewed  in  the  connexion  in  which  we  have  exhibited 
it,  the  congruity  of  each  part  with  the  rest  is  evident.  In 
the  other  interpretation,  there  is  no  sucli  congruity ;  for  there 
is  nutliing  in  Clecrups  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  lie  was  a  deity 
of  agriculture,  or  a  divine  person  at  ail.  A  hero  he  would 
of  course  be  considered.  It  is  uiiuecessary  to  inquire  into 
the  historical  existence  of  the  second  Cecropa»  the  son  of 
Fandion,  ApoU.  3.  15.  In  endeavouiing  to  reduce  mytho- 
logical legends  to  historical  probability  and  chrouolugieal 
order,  an  easy  method  of  escaping  from  diHicuIties  was  to 
suppose  more  than  one  person  to  have  borne  the  same  name, 
or  if  necessary  three.  Thus  we  have  a  second  Minos,  and 
Frcret  maintains  that  there  must  have  been  three  kings  of 
the  name  of  Sardanapolus.  The  second  hangs  upon  the  first 
and  must  fall  with  him. 

Cranaua  comes  next  in  the  list  of  Apolludorus ;  he  too 
is  an  autochthon,  contemporary  witli  the  Boud  of  Deucalion. 
Even  the  most  confiding  reader  will  be  startled  when  he  is 
required  to  believe  that  Attica  was  called  Kpavai}  (rocky) 
from  a  king  whose  name  is  Kpavao^t  and  who  takes  for  his 
wife  Tle^iac  (the  plain  country) ;  yet  a  hundred  histories  of 
Greece  have  repeated  the  name  of  Cranaus  as  a  king  of 
Attica. 

Cranaus  was  expelled  by  Amphictt/on,  whom  some  called 
the  son  of  Deucalion  and  others  an  autochthon.  He,  as  we  find 
from  the  Parian  Marble,  reigned  originally  at  Thermopylae, 
and  formed  the  people  of  that  district  into  the  assembly  which 
bore  his  name.  Now  it  should  be  remerabcrcd  that  the  flood 
of  Denc4ilion  had  happened  just  before,  and  hud  so  destroyed 
the  population  of  Northern  Greece,  that  it  was  necessary 
they  should  be  renewed  by  supernatural  means.  If  then 
we  receive  Amphictyon  as  a  real  pcrsonaj^e,  of  whom  was  the 
original  Amphictyonic  council  composed.''  It  must  have  been 
of  the  men  who  sprung  from  the  stones  which  Deucalion  and 
Pyrrha  flung  l>ohinrl  them.  We  have  no  right  to  demand 
from  the  author  of  a  mythns,  that  he  should  conform  to 
political  arithmetic,  and  not  let  bis  imagination  outstrip  the 
geometrical  ratio  of  the  increase  of  mankind  ;  if  he  drowns  a 
country  by  a  miracle,  it  only  costs  him  another  to  repeople  it. 
Vol.  II.  No.  .0.  Zz 


n 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 


and  lie  may  institute  a  congress  if  he  pleases  the  very  year 
after  his  deluge.  But  liistory  worships  a  more  rigid  Muse, 
who  requires  conformity  with  the  laws  of  nature.  If  we  ad- 
mit an  Amphictyon,  reigning  at  Thermopylae,  we  must  admit 
the  existence  of  an  Amphictyonic  council  in  the  time  of  a 
son  of  Deucalion.  At  all  cvent.<;  Amphictyon  is  an  in- 
truder in  Attic  history ;  for  the  Atlienians  had  no  title  to 
be  considered  at;  founderH  of  the  council,  cif  which  Delphi 
and  Themiopylic  were  the  seals,  though  no  dimbt  tlie  fabulist 
who  inserted  Amphictyon  among  the  Attic  kings  designed 
to  intimate  such  a  claim.  But  did  the  Amphictyonic  council 
owe  its  origin  to  any  Amphictyon 't  As  an  answer  to  this 
question  I  shall  quote  the  words  of  a  learnctl  and  acute  in- 
vestigator of  Greek  antiquities.  "  Si  fabulas  sequimur,  Am- 
phictyones  nonien  traxerunt  ah  Ainphictvone  Deucalioni.s,  patrc 
HcUenis.  I^ui  tamen  antiquitatem  altius  crutati  sunt,  uni- 
Tcrsam  nonint  genealogiam  filiorum  ab  Hellene  dcsccndentium 
historiic  fide  destitutam  esse,  scroque  adornatam,  tcnu  tra- 
ditione  ducc,  post  Horaericam  a.'tatem,  a  cycliis  maxijoe 
poetis,  midto  post  redituni  Hcraclidarum,  quo  communem 
omiiiuni  Gnecorum  origincni  demon strarent.  Impriiius  vero 
Amphiclyonis  persona  confictu  est,  ne  gentium  orig^ne  re- 
centius  videretur  sanctisstmum.  illud  Grsecice  concilium,  quod 
tamen  nop  multo  ante  Heraclidas  in  Petoponnesiim  reverses 
conditum  erat.  Igitur,  ut  verum  dicamus,  Amphictyones 
appcllati  sunt  populi  qui  circa  Delphos  habitantcs  foedus  eft 
commune  judicium  fecerunt,  rcligione  conjunct! ;  an<}>iKrtovev 
sine  irepiKTiovfv,  -repioixot.  Ita  Androtion  rerum  Attitutrum 
scriptor  ap.  Patu.  x.  8.  Anaximenes  ev  irpatTtp  'E\kt}viKwv 
ap.  Harp.  v.  'AfjL(j>tKTvoroi  Cf.  Hcsych.  Suid.  Tim.  Lex.  Plat, 
ibique  Huhnk."     Boeckh  not.  crit.  ad  Find.  Nem.  i>.  40— iS. 

Erichtkxmius  succeeds  in  the  list  of  kings  in  ApoUodorus, 
but  as  I  believe  that  his  name  and  that  of  Erechtheus  are 
really  the  same,  though  Erechtheus  is  inserted  at  a  later 
period,  I  shall  consider  them  together.  That  '?.peyBew  is 
only  a  title  of  Neptune  is  evident  both  from  the  etymology 
of  the  name  and  the  positive  testimony  of  ancient  writers. 
£pc^d«vs.  riocrei^cui'  ev  'AdijViut  Hes.  Lycophr.  178  and  the 
Schol .  Ep^-^ev^  Zci/r  t]  Woacicmv  irapd  to  eyacj^w,  to 
Kw£,       Many  other  writers  declare  the  identity  of    Neptune 


On  the  Early  Kingv  of  Attica. 

and  Erecbtheus.  The  Erechtheuni  of  the  Acro{)olis  was  conti- 
guous to  ihc  temple  of  Mincn-a  Polias,  and  its  pnnci[)nl  allar 
was  dedicated  to  Neptune,  '*on  which,"  Pausanias  savfi,  (i.3(>) 
"they  also  sacrificed  to  Erechtheus;"  a  very  natural  variation 
of  the  story  when  it  was  forgotten  that  Neptune  and  Erechtheus 
were  the  same.  '[i^w^Sfys-  means  "'the  shaker;"  kpeyBofiiyfj. 
aaXevoaevri  Hes.  i.  e.  shaken  by  the  motion  of  the  waves,  and 
this  (II.  y}/.  317)  or  the  figurative  sense  of  agitating  with 
violent  sorrow,  (Od.  e,  83.  157.)  is  the  only  Homeric  use  of 
the  word.  It  is  therefore  equivalent  to  evotrt-xOiav  or  evvcxri- 
ycuo^,  tlie  most  frequent  epithets  of  the  god  of  the  sea.  It 
is  surely  then  much  more  probable,  that  the  hero  and  king 
Erechtheus  was  simply  Neptune,  than  that  Neptune,  and  a 
king  whose  name  happens  to  be  eNactly  ilescriptivc  of  Nep- 
tune, having  some  how  or  other  been  united  in  worship  at 
the  same  altar,  Neptune  thus  came  to  be  calle<l  'E/j6;^ci/s, 
which  is  the  explanation  of  Heyne  ad  Apoll.  3,  15. 

That  Erechtheus  was  really  Neptune,  is  further  evident 
from  the  circumstance  that  the  well  of  salt  water  in  the  Acro- 
polis, which  was  said  to  be  the  memorial  of  the  contest  of 
Neptune  with  Minerva  for  the  honour  of  being  the  tutelary 
deity  of  Athens,  was  called  Oa\a{T<Ta  't)joe;^fl»jiv.  If  Erech- 
theus had  been,  as  Crouzcr  (Symbolik  i.  +01)  supposes,  an 
agricultural  got!,  this  connexion  of  his  name  with  a  well  com- 
municating with  the  sea  (AjwU.  3.  14.  Paus.  1,SG.  8,  10)  would 
be  very  incongruous,  whereas  nothing  was  more  natural  than 
to  call  it  from  the  name  of  Neptune. 

It  may  seem  a  formidable  objection  to  this  explanation, 
that  in  the  Homeric  Catalogue,  II.  j3\  .O+d.  seq.  Erechtheus 
appears   in    a  very  diflerent  character ; 

Ot   o  ap    'A^i/cas  ftx*****  evtrrifievoit  TrroKieBpov 
At/fiov    CpeyBijo^.  fieyaXtfToptK,  ov  "Ttot    AOtivtt 
f^pe'*l/e,   Aiov  Buyartjpf   rtxe  oe   l^eiowpo?  apovpa, 
Kaoo    €V   Adtjutiff'    etffey  cip   evt    ir'iovi    frjtOj 
KvOaoe  juif  TavpoKTi   kuI  api/eioU   iXdovTat 
KovpM  AOt}i>aia)Vy   weptTeXXoftevwv  €vtauTwv. 

I  n»ight  reply  to  thi.s,  that  as  the  Catalogue  is  getierally 
admitted  by  critics  to  be  a  patchwork  nf  very  different  ages, 
this  passage  i.s  no  pr(wf  that  in  the  supposed  age  of  Hf>mcr 


368 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 


this  conception  of  Ereclitheiis  prevailed".  But  I  prefer  an- 
swering, that  I  ndmit  that  in  Homer's  time  the  original  mean- 
ing of  many  things  in  mythology  had  been  completely  lost, 
in  the  popular  and  poetical  notion  of  them.  The  "worship 
of  Minerva  and  Neptune  at  Athens  must  have  ascended  to 
the  very  foundation  of  the  state,  a  time  sufficiently  remote 
from  that  of  Homer  to  admit  of  the  conversion  of  Erechtheus 
into  an  avro^dtvv  and  a  hero  nourished  by  Minerva. 

As  'Ep^y^Oeus  signifies  "the  shaker,"  so  ' Epf^Oovicn  "the 
cartbshaker,''''  still  an  epithet  of  Neptime.  Such  a  compound 
as  'Epe\dt>^06i'to^  would  have  been  intolerable  to  Hellenic 
ears.  The  nncients  Auctuate  in  their  statements  respecting 
Erechtheus  and  Erichthoniiis,  some  making  them  the  same, 
others  different ;  and  as  authority  cannot  settle  -the  point, 
ve  must  appeal  to  probability  and  internal  evidence,  which 
is  so  strong  in  favour  of  their  identity,  that  even  Clavier 
(Hist,  des  Prem.  T.  de  la  Grece  i.  ISii)  regards  them  as  the 
same.  To  KHchthouius  is  generally  attributed  the  invention 
of  yoking  horses  to  the  car ;  tlie  Arundel  marble  attributes 
this  to  Erechtheus ;  both  statements  coniirm  their  identity  with 
Neptune, 

cui  ])rima  frementem 
Fudit  equum  tellus  raagno  percussa   tridenti. 

How  the  god  of  the  waters  carac  to  be  so  closely  connected 
with  horsemanship  and  driving,  is  difficult  to  say ;  whether 
because  the  level  shores  of  inland  lakes  and  of  the  aca  were 
the  earliest  hippodromes;  or  because  his  worship  and  the  use 
of  the  quadriga  came  together  from  Libya  (Her.  4,  189* 
Matthia.  ad  H.  Houi.  in  Ap.  231  seq.),  or  from  some  more 
mystical  connexion,  Midler  Proleg.  p.  2G4. 

The  name  of  'Epi^Oofiov  appears  in  Homer  and  the 
legends  of  Troy,  as  the  son  and  successor  of  Dardanus, 
II.  V,  219  seq.      That  he   is   really   no  other   thai^    Xloaci^wv 

**  In  the  Odfuey  t],  01,  lUincrra  is  said  to  go  'Kptx^iiov  vvKoiiw  cafu>«,  u  if 
thii  or  'lif>r)c0€ioi>  were  tlirii  the  niunc  of  the  princi]ial  iciiiple  of  the  AcmpoUft  and 
canMijUmtljr  Erechtheun,  i.e.  NeptuDc,  the  chief  divinity.  So  Apf»II.  3.  U,  3,  ^^^ 
■rpiSroK  Jloattcmf  i-ri.  t»iV  ' A-r-rikiiv,  Nq)tunc  BcciTift  li>  h»Te  b«n  properly  the  god. 
of  Attica,  Mincn-B  to  hare  (icIangcU  more  txclusirel^  10  ilic  Acnipolii ;  Neptune  wm 
the  goi  of  the  totiianv  Minerva  of  the  Athenian! :  uid  when  Ath^n  hod  ceaud  to 
be  lonuiti,  cicepi  in  remcinb'r»ii4:eT  Alincrva  nas  c-uiltcd  nitove  N<-pitinc< 


L 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Jttica.  363 

''Iwirio^   appears   from    the   only   circimiBtaiice   nieutioncd   re- 
specting bim : 

Tot  Tpi<Txi\tat   tTTTTo*  eXo?  Kara  f^itKoXeovro 
G?/\eiai,  TTtoKotatv  ayaWofievat  araXtifft. 

It  is  thus  that  mythology  dwindles  down  into  history;  the 
god  who  created  the  horse  becomes  in  the  historic  garb  a 
wealthy  sovereign  witli  a  stud  of  three  thousand  inart-s.  The 
Erichthonius  of  the  Trojan  dynasty  is  then  no  other  than 
the  Neptune  who  built  the  walls  of  Troy. 

There  is  one  circunistance,  however,  which  distinguishes 
Erichthonius  from  Ereclitheus  ;  it  is  to.  the  former  that  a 
joint  descent  from  Vulcan  and  Minerva  is  attributed.  As 
Vulcan  and  Minerva  were  irdpe^poi^  and  as  a  great  object 
with  fabulists  was  to  connect  their  supposed  sovereigns  and 
lieroes  with  the  gods  of  the  country,  this  must  be  done  also 
with  respect  to  Minerva  and  Vulcan.  It  was  not  an  easy 
matter  in  the  case  of  the  virgin  goddess,  and  the  difficulty 
was  got  over  by  a  fiction,  founded  on  the  name  of  Erichtho- 
nius {efMov  j^OdJi')  which  is  no  example  of  the  elegance  of 
Greek  mythology.  Apollod.  S.  I4-.  That  part  of  the  fable, 
at  least,  which  represented  Minerva  as  flying  from  Vulcan 
was  ancient,  for  it  was  cxliibitwl  on  the  throne  at  Amycla;. 
Pans.  3.  18. 

Erysiv-hthoTii  though  lie  appears  in  the  Atlic  legends  as 
we  now  have  theui,  as  a  son  of  Cecrops  (Paus.  i.  2)  seems 
to  me  to  belong  jwoperly  to  a  different  mythus.  The  Ery- 
sichthon,  whose  history  is  relutetl  by  Colliinachus  (H.  in  Cer. 
CaJ.  S3  acq.)  and  wlio  is  punished  for  his  impiety  towards 
Ccree,  is  a  poetical  personification  of  the  mildew  which  blights 
the  com,  as  is  evident  both  from  his  hostility  to  Ceres  and 
the  etymology  of  his  name.  The  first  part  of  the  word  is 
the  same  as  in  €f>uaifiiji  €pv<7t7re\a^,  from  epevBw  to  redden, 
from  the  redness  of  the  .spot  which  marks  the  disea.se,  both 
in  the  human  race  and  in  the  com.  So  ruhigo  in  Latin  is 
connected  with  ruber^  and  the  English  rtist-,  the  appropriate 
name  of  the  disease,   with   roos^'",   Germ,  rost,  riisten.     The 

"*  In  the  Engluh  editioo  of  N'okIi  Welnter'a  Dictionary,  ibut  word  t»  abftuidly 
referred  to  the  swne  root  as  nutallmii,  a  nki* ;  or  an  uuknown  rcwt  meaning  crisp. 
But  what  ii  ihie  coinivnreil  willi  another  riymDttigf  in  ihc  same  vnrs  '     "  Egat)  Qu. 


3G4  Oh  the  Early  Kings  of  Attiea. 

vengeance  of  the  goddess  u  characteristic — she  inflicts  iuaa- 
tiablc  hunger  oa  Erysichtbou  ;  from  which  circuui stance,  or 
because  the  rust  seems  to  burn  up  the  plant,  he  waa  called 
"Atdmv.  This  fable  is  exceedingly  appropriate  to  the  worship 
of  the  Triopian  Ceres,  to  which  it  properly  belongs  (Miiller 
Prolog.  162)  but  I  see  no  natural  connoction  of  it  with  either 
Attica  or  Delos,  in  the  fables  of  which  also  Erysichthon  appears. 
I  am  therefore  inclined  to  conjecture  that  two  names,  slightly 
differing,  have  been  confounded;  that  the  name  of  the  Attic 
and  Dclian  hero  is  properly  'Ept<Ttydti>v  or  'EpealyQtuv*^-,  which 
will  then  correspond  with  'lijot^^ei/?  and  'Epij^^owos ;  for 
€fte<ratti,  ep^Qw,  epi^w,  belong  to  the  same  family  as  €pe-)^6io^ 
and  signify  primarily  to  agitate,  or  assail  with  violence. 
'  l!.p€<Ti^dwi>  would  then  have  a  very  appropriate  place  in  the 
mythology  of  the  island  of  Delos,  tu  which  the  loniaus  bo 
much  resorted ;  for  Neptune  and  Apollo  were  their  chief 
divinities.  He  was  said  tu  have  died  at  sea  on  his  return 
from  the  Delian  Theoria  (Paus.  1.  31),  and  later  writers  made 
him  the  founder  of  the  temple  of  Apollo  at  Delos. 

With  Erechtheus  the  lonians  are  connected,  by  the  mar- 
riage of  Xuthus  with  his  daughter  Creusa.  (Apoll.  i.  7.  2.) 
I  must  here  revert  briefly  to  what  was  said  at  the  conclusion 
of  my  former  paper,  (Phil.  M.  1.  627)  respecting  the  differ- 
ence between  the  lonians  and  the  Pelasgians.  In  the  mythi 
of  other  parts  of  Greece,  where  Pclasgian  population  is  ad- 
mitted to  Imve  existed,  as  Argos,  Arcadia,  Thcssaly,  we  find 
a  Pelasgus  connected  with  the  events  of  the  earliest  times, 
but  he  has  no  place  at  all  in  the  Attic  mythi,  from  which  we 
may  conclude  that  the  Athenians  did  not  attribute  to  them- 
selves a  Polasgian  origin.  They  well  know  that  the  Pelas- 
gians who  were,  as   Herodotus  says,  (rvvotKot  rois  'AOrjvatoi^ 

Ch.  -1JK  a  luclij  fttH,  as  we  say,  my  tiara !"     To  rout  U  to  rtd'Un  hy  Uic  appUcnticm 
of  hcfti. 

*"  ' EpiaixBt.>if  U  [he  reading  of  dcverat  MSS.  In  Plat-  CriU  ill.  IIU.  §  i.  wlierr 
the  Attic  hem  ta  clearly  meant,  and  ' Epcvijfdwf  ApoUod.  3,  U,  d  Ileyne.  In  Orkl 
ItleL  K,  737  ae<|.  the  name  n  apclt  Kmichtlioo.  Ovid  combineii  ihe  cwr>  pcruaagCK; 
for  Aleom,  tJie  daughter  of  nmicbthiin,  is  repTCfiniied  ju  ret'ctrin^  tVom  Nfjitune  th« 
gift  of  changing  hcraclf  Into  all  fthapw,  which  belonged  li>  th*  marine  deities  and 
hcrticB,  Proicun,  Nerciis,  Ulaucus.  Ilcnce  the  name  Mri-rpa  {fift-rtv)  such  tieitie* 
being  preeminently  oracular.  Neptune  wba  the  rnnRtiii  of  the  KomuiA,  the  gntl  nf 
counichi.  an  iin'um  of  a(tribut<-»  which  Scaliger  could  not  comprehend.  Sec  Vo«9fo« 
EtTm.  h.  I .      - 


I 


On  the  Early  Kings  uf  Attica. 

I.  fj^'  anil  liiid  \KViTi  i-niploye<l  to  biiildi  llie  VFtd\  of  the  Acrtv 
jKilis,    were    not    tlieiiiselves    the    Athenian    or    Attic    people. 
Different  upiniuns  prevailed  as  to  their  origin  ;  sonic  (bought 
they  caiiie  from  Thessaly,  others  from  Italy'';   but  that  they 
were  advefttSi   who   had   been    rewariletl   for    their  labour   tn 
bnilding   the    wall   by   the   allotment   of  lands»  and   expelled 
throLigh  jealousy  or   redeiitnient,    (Her.   G,   137)    ^as    agreed 
by   all.       And   though   Hermlotus  him^lf  does   Aiu'ak  of  the 
Attic  nation  as  being   IVlasgic,    i.  57*    and   even   calls   them 
XlcXaayot    KfMifaoi    H,  -t-l-,    I    think   any   one    who   reflects  on 
t)]c  absence  of  all   historical  nionument£  by  which  tlic  use  of 
the   various   names   which    he    there   supjioses    the   Athenians 
successively    to   have  borne,    could   be  established,   must   con- 
clude that   he  is   nut   speaking  from  historical  evidence,   but 
from  tlie  usBumption   that  poetical  synonyuies   were   national 
names.      This    was    the    reason    for   supjxising    the    Athenians 
to  have  been  called  Cecropidce  and  Cranai.     And  a  similar 
want  of  historical  evidence   leads  us  to  infer    that   when   he 
calls   the   Athenians    Pelasgi    and    when    the    Greeks    allegetl 
(Her.   7.  JH*^   Uiat  the   lonians   had   been  colled   lUXuayol 
'Atyia\t€9,  it  was  only  because  they  supposed  all  Greece  to 
have  been    once   called    Pelasgia.     As  far  as   we  know  any- 
thing  of  the  I'elasgic   language,   its  affinities   seem    to    have 
been   to  the   Doric  and   ^'Kolic,    and    the   strong   contrast   in 
which    from    ancient   times   (Her.    i.   56')    Dorian    and    Ionian 
stood  is  hardly  intelligible,  if  the    lonians  were  also    Pelas- 
gi an  s*". 

Those  who  adopt  the  opinion  that  the  original  population 
of  Attica  was  Pelasgic  find  a  difficulty  tn  explaining  whence 
the  lonians  came.  They  appear  in  Attic  history,  says  MiiU 
ler,  *'a8  if  they  had  fallen  from  the  skies""  (l)orier  i.  n), 
and  he  supjioscs  them  to  have  detached  tliemselves  from  some 
Nortliem  tribe.  Historically  they  are  known  in  tlie  following 
regions.     Their  occupBtion  of  the  northern  coast  of  the  Pelo- 

*<  Sm  SiebilU  ad  Paui.  i.  28. 

^  Mc  ~EXXn*>r«  Xiyou^i — g  9fi  mi  'BX>i(v«y  \6yot  •peaking  of  ibe  JEoMboa 
who  ware  also  alleged  Ui  be  PcUaglaiu. 

3*  It  U  a  probable  conjecture  of  Waichsmuth  (Hell.  Alt.  i.  -18)  that  the  Phssctaiu. 
t. «.  Catcyteua  vat  iQniatu.  Th(  divuion  tnU)  twelve  <.)d.  4'.  3tm,  U  ehancteri«(ic 
of  the  Ionian  state*.  '_  i        .^   !      ■  .  • .   -    , 


fHK  On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 

ponni^sus  to  the  junction  of  tlte  bay  of  Corinth  wth  the  sea 
that  washes  Italy  and  Sicily  is  attesteft  by  the  name  lowup 
iVhich  this  sea  bore,  and  of  which  all  the  other  etymologies 
are  manifest  fictions.  The  Cynurians  on  the  Eastern  side 
of  the  Peloponnesus  were  an  Ionian  people,  and  except  the 
Arcadians,  says  Herodotus,  8.  1%,  and  the  Acha'ans,  the  onlj 
autochthones  in  it.  In  his  time  the  Cynurians  were  com- 
pletely detached  from  their  kinsmen  and  ha<l  become  Dorian, 
but  probably  in  older  times  the  lonians  had  extended  tlicm- 
aelves  from  the  Corinthian  gulph  as  low  down  as  Cynuria". 
The  Acte  or  coast  of  Ar^lis  opjx>site  to  Attica  (Miiller 
Doner  i.  p.  8i.)  was  Ionian,  and  as  the  Ionian  Tetrapolis 
which  Xiithus  is  said  to  have  colonized,  (Strabo  i.  p.  .^.W  Oxf.) 
included  Marathon  on  the  coast  opposite  to  Eubc^a,  and 
lonians  were  found  also  in  the  Southern  part  of  Buboea 
itself,  except  Carystus,  (Thuc.  7,  57)  we  may  regard  the 
whole  intervening  space  as  included  in  the  ancient  limits  of 
Ionia.  The  southern  part  of  Attica  was  that  to  which  the 
name  'Attik^  properly  belonged,  for  this  word  seems  formed 
from  'AicTi;,  and  according  to  the  observation  of  Niebuhr 
•  (Geogr.  of  Her.  p.  S9.)  it  is  to  such  a  promontory  as  this 
that  the  name  '.\kt^  specifically  applies.  Hence  'AktiiIo^  and 
'AicTaiaiv  in  the  Attic  mjthi.  The  southern  part  of  Boeotia 
was  also  Ionian", 

The   lonians  thus  occupied  a  long  line  of  seacoast,  and 
when    we   consider    how    very    slight   a    change    would    make 

**  [  am  iocLined  to  think  ih«t  the  FyliAos  on  the  wMttm  roa<t  were  alno  loninns- 
Ajiollodorus  sftys  that  Pyl«)  kin^  o(  Mcgurs  founded  Pylu^  in  tbr  Peloponnesus. 
ThU  M  tTidcntly  d»iffncd  to  make  ihc  PrliMin,  who  under  Nclcns  joined  in  tlic 
irigTstion  which  followed  the  Dnrian  coni(ue»t,  of  Ionian  orli^n  ;  but  the  rcil  cod- 
a«xian  vu  probably  older.  Neptune  wai  the  chief  divinity  of  the  Pylian*;  Nelens 
Lh  bin  son.  Od.  X',  2(>3;  indeed  NcKtor  hiiaiielf  (vfw,  N'eirroc]  appear*  to  me  to  be 
nothing  cbr  than  a  marine  frod,  in  lapse  of  time  convened  into  a  king  and  hero,  yet 
rrtainlng  In  his  epir  chamrter  the  features  nf  divinity,  but  relaxed  at>d  softened  tc  the 
huioAD  upecL  Compare  Ucaiod'ii  description  of  Nereua  with  the  Homeric  Nutor : 
K)][p«a  S  d^tviia  KaX  dXri'dia  ytliraTQ  no'irrot 
Hfitff^VToTov  Traliav  atrrdft  noKttytiai  yipot/ra, 

At{0«Tai,  oAAa  HKiua  xsl  ^wio  l^»*a  o\t*».     Th.  233. 
HerodotuH  calU  the  PyliuiB  Caucotttani,  an  he  calls  the  lotiiuu  ^gialean  PelasgUnc 
I.  U7. 

**    Uesych.   'Ittlvrv.   iinoi  ko}   tqv^  i}fidiiav  'Ayaivvv  Km  Baiwrov*.     The   Thra- 
ciatu  here  mentioned  mutt  be  those  of  Ikrotia. 


On  the   Early  Kingn  of  Attica. 

'{\iovia  into  'Iijuvla  or  'laovta,  and  how  destitute  of  all  his- 
Idrical  a\ithority  arc  the  legends  about  Ion  the  grandfion  of 
Hellcn,  we  sliall  perhaps  regard  this  as  a  much  more  probable 
origin  of  the  name.  It  corresponds  with  'AiyiaKtia,  which 
part  of  tlie  same  region  bore ;  a  name  which  the  m^'thologists 
referred  to  an  .'Egialeus,  with  as  little  scruple  as  Ionia  to 
Ion,  notwithstanding  its  palpable  derivation  from  ai^toXu'v. 
Perhaps  it  will  not  be  venturing  too  far  into  the  regions  of 
etymological  conjecture  to  suggest  that  uveii  the  name  'A-xa'ta, 
which  in  the  historic  times  this  same  country  bore,  is  of 
similar  meaning.  A  nwt  answering  to  the  Latin  aqua  pro- 
bably existed  in  the  Greek ;  we  trace  it  in  'A^^eXaio;  and 
'Axffi*ov.  This  etymology  of  'A\nla  suits  equally  with  the 
position  of  the  Thessalian  Achu^a,  and  a  similarity  of  name, 
though  arising  from  similarity  of  site,  was  quite  suffi- 
cient to  give  rise  to  the  story  of  a  colony  from  the  one 
to  the  other.  Strabo  and  Apollodorus  make  Acha;us  and 
Ion  brothers ;  and  Herodotus,  by  considering  the  Acha>ans 
as  autochthones  in  the  Peloponnesus,  virtually  coutrudicts 
the  story  of  a  migration  from  Pthiotis.  Whatever  may 
be  thought  of  this  conjecture,  it  seems  to  me  that  by  as- 
signing to  the  lunians  an  existence  coeval  with  the  earliest 
times  of  Grecian  tradition,  we  extricate  ourselves  from  a 
very  great  difficulty,  arising  from  the  mention  of  Juvnn  in 
the  I>ook  of  Genesis  x.  2.  In  the  age  of  Moses  there  were 
no  Ionian  colonies  in  Asia,  and  the  Ion  of  the  myt1io](v 
gists  was  not  born ;  even  in  the  age  of  David  the  pilgrim 
fathers  of  those  flourishing  republics  had  but  just  set  foot 
on  its  shores,  and  could  not  have  given  them  a  name 
But  if  the  lonions  were  a  widely  extended  tribe,  autoch- 
thones on  the  northern  and  eastern  limits  of  the  IVlopon- 
aesus,  in  Attica,  and  Ba^otia,  their  name  might  very  well 
be  used,  even  in  the  age  of  Moses,  for  southern  Greece,  as 
that  of  Ilellafl  (Elisha)  for  northern  Greece.  This  implies 
of  course  that  Hellas  had  a  much  wider  extent  in  early  times 
than  we,  judging  from  the  Homeric  limitation  of  it,  which 
is  probably   an  archaism  of  poetry,  commonly  suppose*. 

^  The  inppoiiitlan  that  the  Acheui  nnd  Koutli  U<rotiiui  tlibJect  wu  the  some  at 
the  oH  Tonic  and  Attic,  coiucquenily  in  the  niatn  tlic  suuc  as  the  epic,  wuultl  remove 
tuiuiy  (liffimlties  hi  the  history  of  ihr  Oreek  langiiagp  audi  literature. 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  3  A 


^ 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attica. 

It  is  tl»e  opinion  of  several  able  German  writers,  MuUcr 
Dorier  i.  237.  AVachsmuth  Hell.  Alt.  i.  2;io,  that  the  lonians 
were  a  military  caste,  who  reduced  the  agncultural  Pclasgi 
to  the  condition  of  tributaries  and  made  themselves  a  ruling 
aristocracy.  No  ancient  writer  however  knows  anythingr  of 
Buch  a  distinction  between  tlie  military  class  and  the  utiier 
three  of  whom  the  Athenian  and  other  Ionic  states  were 
constituted  ;  tlie  Ergadeis,  Aigicoreis  and  Teleontes  are  made 
to  derive  their  namesi  from  Btnis  of  Ion  accortling  to 
the  legend  in  Herodotus  5.  (56,  just  as  much  as  the  military 
Hoplctes.  It  is  true  tliat  Herodotus  represents  Ion  as  <jTpa~ 
rapyrys^  and  Stralx>  as  woXe/j-ap-^^o^,  of  the  Athenians,  and 
Midler  regards  this  as  an  indication  nf  the  military  character 
of  the  whole  Ionian  people.  lint  the  case  admitted  of  na 
other  representatiim  of  him.  It  was  in  some  way  to  be  ac- 
counted for  that  the  Athenian  people  should  have  borne  the 
name  of  lonians  and  Attica  of  Ionia.  They  did  not  like  the 
name  of  lonians  (Her.  i.  14.'J)  and  were  not  likely  therefore 
to  make  Ion  one  of  their  native  kings,  but  they  represented 
him  as  entrusted  with  the  government  (Strabo  i.  .O-Mi)  or  as 
being  made  commander  of  their  forces.  So  Eumolpus  is  re- 
prcsentcil  (ApoU.  3.  1.5)  as  the  commander  of  the  army  of 
Glcusis,  though  the  Enmolpidn?  instead  of  being  a  military 
caste  were  the  hereditary  priesthood  of  the  Elcusinian  Ceres. 
The  story  indeed  hung  badly  together,  for  it  was  very  im- 
prubablc  that  the  divisions  of  the  people  should  be  named 
from  four  sons  of  Ion,  unless  Ion  had  been  something  more 
to  Athens  than  its  polemarchus;  but  consistency  is  not  to  be 
looked  for  in  such  attempts.  The  lonians  appear  to  have 
been  as  ignorant  of  their  having  been  a  predominant  caste 
as  the  Atheninns  of  their  having  been  subject  to  such  a  supe- 
riority :  Herodotus  gives  no  hint  of  anything  of  the  kind- 
Tlie  passages  in  Attic  authors  to  which  MuUer  refers,  as 
proving  that  the  eupatrids  at  Athens  were  of  pure  Ionian 
blond,  are  far  from  establishing  this  point.  In  Demosth. 
C.  Bubulid.  1315.  to  be  taken  to  tlie  temple  of  Apollo  iraTfy^o 
is  mentioned  as  a  proof  of  Athenian  blood  and  citizenship, 
not  of  Ionian  and  eupatrid  extraction;  and  if  it  be  said,  that 
anciently  the  citirxaship  was  limited  to  louimi  blood  and 
eupatrid    extraction,   we  ask   for  the  proof  of  this  limitation. 


1 


On  the  Early  King*  of  Attica. 

In  Plat.  Eulhyii,  i.  302.  ^  72  it  is  evident  that  far  from 
Ionian  mid  Athenian  being  used  in  contrast  to  one  another, 
the  unly  reason  of  the  mention  nf  lonians  is  that  there  were 
iither  luniaiis  l^esidcH  Athenians^,  namely  the  lonianft  of  Asia, 
and  that  it  was  equally  true  of  tJiem,  as  of  the  Athcninnfl, 
that  AptiUo,  not  Jupiter,  was  their  0eo?  iraTp^w-  The  rea- 
son assigned  for  this  is  that  AjmiIId  was  the  father  of  Ion. 
l)f  the  magistrnte-i  it  was  inquired  wliethcr  they  were  '  AQrjvaiot 
SKaTefjooOev  not  Imve^  eKarfputOev  VuW.  8.  85.  The  e<peTai 
are  said  to  have  been  dptcTTiy^rp'  aipfdt'rrey  Pollux  8.  134,  but 
this  by  no  means  implies  "  cliosen  from  tlie  aristocracy"  (coinp. 
8,  112)  but  fur  merit  or  rank,  not  fruin  all  classes  without  regan.1 
to  qualificatiun.  There  seems  then  to  be  nothing  like  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  on  Ionian  military  caste  at  Athens,  keep- 
ing an  old  Pelasfjic  agricultural  ]xtpulation  in  the  condition 
of  tribute  payers.  The  tcXco>'tcv  or  yeXeovre^  who  were  a 
regular  part  of  the  fourfold  division  of  an  Ionian  state  as  we 
know  from  their  names  occurring  on  the  marble  of  Cyzicus, 
(Caylus  Wee.  des  Ant.  2.  Co.  scq.)  where  Pclasgian  tributaries 
arc  out  of  the  question,  arc  much  more  likely  to  be  the  mi- 
nisters of  religion%  who  would  otherwise  have  no  place  in  the 
dilTcrent  classes  of  the  community. 

It  may  appear  at  first  sight  that  the  mythnlogist  who 
nuule  XuthuK  the  father  of  Ion  marry  a  daughter  of  Krech- 
theus,  must  have  intended  to  represent  the  lonians  as  intro- 
duced into  Athens  sub.sL'qucntly  to  its  tirxt  foundation.  Hut 
all  force  has  been  already  taken  from  this  argument,  as  we 
have  shewn  that  lOrechtheus  is  no  other  thnn  the  god  Nep- 
tune, whose  worship  was  coeval  witli  tliat  of  Minerva  herself. 
Now  Neptune  was  especially  an  Ionian  goil;  he  was  wur- 
Hhippetl  at  other  places  along  the  t>hore  ut  the  Cwinthian  gulf, 
but  especially  at  Ileliee;  at  Corinth,  in  H<eotia;  and  when 
the  colonists  scttle<l  on  the  coast  of  Asia,  they  built  at  My- 
cale  a  comnu>n  temple,  wlu-ro  under  the  saiictiun  of  Hclico- 
niuji  Neptune  the  Panionian  Pancgyris  was  held.  Apollo 
was  also,  but  in  n  much  inferior  degree,  an  Ionian  god,  and 


"  ApoUodunu  t.  i>,  14  tnukca  Buics  the  Mm  nl'  Tclcnii ;  but  (he  KteobuUdc  were 
ilic  \a\t3lB  of  the  j'tnat  ulinr  of  Mlncrv*  and  Krcclilbcus  .t,  1^  I,  8irit»o  i.  AM.  Ox. 
cvitleatly  took  the  r«A<u»T4«  to  b«  itfoiipiol. 


I 


370  On  the' Early  Kingti  of  Attica. 

it  was  prtihably  to  accommodate  the  story  to  Athenian  vanity, 
by  giving  theoi  as  close  a  connexion  with  the  Delphian  god 
as  their  rivals  the  DorianSf  that  Apollo,  in  the  tragedy  of 
Euripides,  was  made  the  real  fatlicr  of  Ion.  But  though 
Apollo  belonged  more  to  the  Dorian  than  the  Ionian  religion, 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  merely  adopted 
by  the  Utter  people ;   he  belonged  to  the  national  mythology. 

Pandion  is  the  next  name  in  the  list  of  the  Attic  kings ; 
for  though  Apollodorus  makes  him  succeed  Erichthouius, 
yet  as  we  iiave  seen  that  Erichthonius  is  only  a  synonymc 
for  Erechtheus,  we  are  really  no  further  advanced  than  we 
were.  The  origin  of  {lav^iatv  ia  evident,  I  think,  from  the 
circumstance  which  Apollodorus  connects  with  the  mention 
of  his  name,  c^'  ov  AtifiyjTtip  kqI  Aiovto'or  ely  Ttju  Amjcijy 
y\0ov.  Hy  their  accession  the  list  of  ail  the  gods  who  were 
especially  honoured  at  Athens  was  made  complete;  the  name 
of  Fandion's  mother  WaaiQea  alludes  to  the  same  circura- 
fitance,  as  Zev^iinrrj,  that  of  her  sister,  to  the  chariot  race 
of  the  Panathen«*an  festival,  which  Erichthonius  was  said 
to  have  instituted.  This  solemnity  was  evidently  a  joint 
celebration  of  the  three  principal  divinities  of  the  Acropolis. 
The  procession  and  warlike  exercises  were  in  honour  of 
Minerva;  the  chariot  race  of  Neptune;  the  torch  race  began 
from  the  altar  which  was  jointly  dedicated  to  Vulcon  and 
Prometheus.  Schol.  CEd.  Col.  5ti.  Prometheus  indeed  seems 
to  have  borne  the  same  relation  to  Vulcan,  as  Erechtheus  to 
Neptune,  an  epithet  transformed  into  a  distinct  person.  Vul- 
can represents  the  clement  of  fire  and  its  application  to  art, 
Prometheus  the  ingenuity  by  which  the  KXuToTe^rj/s-  pro- 
duced his  works.  Dirdalus  is  another  artist,  scarcely  to  be 
distinguished  from  Vulcan  if  we  consider  the  original  con- 
ception. 

Passing  over  the  second  Erechtheus,  the  second  Cecrops 
and  the  second  Pandion  as  mere  shadows  of  the  first,  we  come 
to  yEfreus  the  father  of  Theseus.  That  he  also  is  no  other 
than  a  synonyme  of  Neptune  hiw  been  so  convincingly  shewn 
by  Midler  (Prolog,  p.  271)  that  I  shall  quote  his  words  and 
gladly  avail  myself  of  his  autliority. 

"  Theseus  was  a  Poscidonian  hero.  He  was  worshipped, 
like  Poseidon,  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  month  (Plut.  Thes.  36.) 


I 


On  the  Early  Kings  of  AtHcc.  371 

From  the  Marm.  Oxon.  Si.  p.  15  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  Posoidia  were  celebrated  on  the  eighth  of  Puscideon.) 
The  father  of  Theseus  is  said  to  have  been  either  the  god 
Poseidon  (PUit.  6)  or  the  Attic  king  j^geus,  whose  name, 
being  derived  from  Ai'ycs,  waves,  is  a  designation  of  the  god 
of  the  sea,  places  consecrated  to  whom  were  called  yEgea, 
and  who  was  called  on  the  Isthmus  Mgeon  (Callini.  ap.  Plut. 
Sympos.   V.  3.   3)  otherwise  /Egaeus   (Pherecydca  ap.   Schol. 

Apull.  Apod.  I.  831.  comp.  Lycophr.  135.)     lies.  A'lyaiwv 

^■Egeus  is  oidy  another  name  for  Poseidon." 

The  reign  of  Ogyges  Iwgan,  as  M.  Kaoul  Rochette  ORnures 
us,  I79(j  years  before  the  Christian  ccra.  *' Cette  date  est 
precise,  autorisi5c  et  se  concilie  aiscment  avec  tons  les  tcm- 
oginages  historiqucs."  Vul.  i.  p.  101.  It  is  at  least  equally 
certain  that  Theseus  lived  about  1200  B.  c.  Dr  Lcmpriere 
says  "the  rape  of  Helen  by  Theseus  took  place  1215  b.  c." 
Making  a  reasonable  allowance  for  the  time  which  he  would 
spend  in  this  and  other  juvenile  exploits,  we  may  suppose 
him  to  have  begun  hia  graver  labours  as  a  legislator  at  the 
date  above  mentioned.  Here  then  we  have  nearly  600  years 
of  Attic  liistory,  and  we  have  obtained  nothing  from  it,  but 
names  derived  from  the  mythology  of  the  country,  and  tales 
connected  with  those  names,  evidently  designed  to  explain 
rites,  customs,  institutions,  and  national  afFinities  and  relations, 
the  true  origin  of  which  was  lost.  From  Erechtheus  to 
vEgeus  we  have  been  travelling  round  a  circle,  setting  out 
from  the  worship  of  Neptune  to  arrive  at  the  same  fact 
again.  There  is  nothing  here  which  might  not  just  as  well 
have  been  invented  and  referred  back  to  a  venerable  anti- 
quity as  preserved  by  tradition.  The  adaptations  of  names 
and  explanations  of  customs  are  not  incidental  and  occasional, 
in  a  history  bearing  in  other  respects  the  character  of  a  real 
tradition ;  they  are  absolutely  the  whole  of  the  history ; 
there  is  not  a  single  name  in  the  list  of  kings,  which  has  not 
an  obvious  reference  to  something  which  seemed  to  require 
an  historical  explanation.  The  history  must  therefore  be 
referre<l  to  the  desire  to  produce  such  an  explanation,  and 
what  is  true  in  it  is  only  the  existence  of  the  facts  to  be 
explained,  what  is  probable  is  only  better  imngincd  or  more 
Aflgaciously  inferred  than  what  is  improbable- 


372  On  the  Early  Kings  of  Attiea. 

Perhaps  no  otlier  portion  of  heroic  history  of  equal 
length  could  be  explained  with  the  same  facility  on  the  same 
principle.  The  reason  is  that  the  Attic  niythi  have  been  of 
later  origin  and  less  intermixed  than  those  of  other  parts  of 
Greece ;  they  ore  of  a  more  exclusively  domestic  character, 
as  might  be  expected  among  a  ]>eople  who  had  themselves 
undergone  so  little  intermixture  with  other  tribes.  Those 
of  the  IMopounesus  from  tlic  opposite  cause,  are  blended  in 
a  confusion  which  is  perhaps  inextricable  Yet  the  Attic 
inythi  are  too  closely  connected  witli  those  of  the  rest  of 
Greece,  to  allow  of  their  being  withdrawn,  as  destitute  of  all 
historical  realitVi  without  endangering  the  stability  of  all  the 
others.  The  mythological  substratum  which  may  be  seen 
ill  its  contumity  tlirouj^houl  the  heroic  history  of  Attica, 
peeps  out  elsewhere  in  innumerable  places,  and  we  may  fairly 
conclude  that  it  everywhere  lies  at  the  bottom,  thougli  often 
hidden  by  the  luxuriant  productions  of  Greek  imagination. 

M.  C.  Y.  J.  K. 


It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  in  quoting  (p.  348)  Hcsychius 
for  Vuyait}  lolf  1}  TKOTtniri,  I  have  negiecteii  to  mentiun  that  the  com- 
mentators on  that  Lexicographer  consider  Vuyatn  an  h  false  reading 
for  Aw^d-ij.  It  is  certain  thot  the  letters  are  easily  confounded,  and 
that  faltie  readings  have  arisen  in  HeRychius  from  their  confu&ioii. 
e.  gr.  KcNaifor.  uKorttfuy  nifu  evidently  for  fiihuf.  It  is  therefore 
Tioasihle  that  -yti^tiu/  may  be  an  error  of  transcription  for  \i*yairf,  but 
It  is  also  possible  that  the  leametl  men  who  have  condemned  it  would 
have  formed  a  different  opinion,  had  it  occurred  to  them  to  consider 
myvytot  as  belonging  to  the  same  root,  and  as  primarily  signifying 
dark.  It  in  .^ko  by  no  means  improbable  that  the  letters  y  and  A 
may  have  been  interchanged  in  pronmieiation;  for  m-^**  is  considered 
to  be  the  same  word  an  n6\iv  and  triyntio  to  he  the  root  of  silro.  If 
however  we  muAt  acquiesce  in  ofi^j^aTov  as  the  primary  meaning  of 
ft>7i'V'«T»  then  the  account  ttiat  Ofiyges  was  the  first  king  oi'  AtticA  or 
Bii-otia  will  tinve  the  same  probability  as  if  he  h.iil  been  called 
Archirus.  Those  who  maintiun  his  real  existence  will  not,  I  tliink, 
gain  much  by  the  substitution. 


H 


lu  the  article  On  the  NamrsaftheAtHehrllenic  InitabilauU  '</  Gnvrtf,  in  No.  III. 
)>>ri||,   I,  ti.    fur   Tctnhice*  tend    7Viniriir''ii. 
ibid.    1.  I  from  ilw  boltoni,  for  lUfp  of  i{fe  read  dri^  a/  lif>, 
I>.  fi'2X  I.  l.l.  frtr  Lyilitina  read   Lihyanx. 
p.  It2."i.  I.  7.  tiff  I.tiyt  fMd  Lihitn. 
ibid.    I.  lu.  for  w^mkring  tcuH  vowicrinff. 


ON  ENGLISH  PRiETERITES. 


The  forms  of  the  English  prsctcrites  handled  in  the 
fourth  lumiber  of  this  Museum,  are  of  so  much  importance 
in  a  philological  point  of  view,  and  Imvc  till  of  late  Itcen 
no  unfortunately  treated  by  persons  entirely  mistaken  as  to 
the  great  part  they  play  in  Teutonic  Granmiar,  tJiat  we 
need  no  ajiology  for  returning  to  the  siubject;  and  endea- 
vouring as  far  as  in  us  lies  to  clear  up  their  true  character 
and  history.  Tliat  this  can  only  be  done,  by  tracing  their 
history,  and  the  forms  they  have  successively  assunietl,  I 
trust  will  appear  to  all  who  will  take  the  pains  to  compare 
the  system  which  we  introduce  to  them  with  that  of  our  pre- 
decessors in  this  almost  untrodden  field :  and  while  we  more 
immediately  pursue  the  forms  of  the  verbs,  and  observe  the 
scale  of  aflinitics  by  which  they  are  in  regular  order  liuke<l 
together,  I  am  not  without  hope,  that  the  thought  may  occur 
to  some  readers,  that  much  which  tbey  have  looked  upon  as 
arbitrary  and  irregular,  appeared  m  to  them,  only  because 
they  had  not  learnt  to  cast  their  eyes  over  a  sufficiently 
extensive  circle  of  facts ;  and  that  they  may  feel,  that  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  number  of  elements  which  we  intro- 
duce into  the  calculation,  is  our  chance  of  perceiving  the 
deep-laid  and  ever-ruling  lawS)  on  which  as  a  foundation, 
Teutonic  etymology  is  raised.  In  the  following  pages  it 
will  be  shewn  tliat  a  strict  system  prevails  tliroughout  our 
verbal  forms;  that  it  is  complete  within  itself  and  incapable 
of  alterations;  that  as  such  it  has  subsisted  in  the  written 
Teutonic  languages  for  upwards  of  fourteen  centuries,  and 
may,  before  the  languages  were  written  down  have  subsisted 
for  as  many  more.  And  this  will  be  enough  for  my  present 
purpose,  wliicli  is  mainly  to  .ihow  that  the  verbs  usually 
called  irregular  are  uothing  of  the  sort;  and  I  therefore  shall 
not  follow  these  forms  into  their  developemeut  as  nouns,  ad- 


37*  On  English  Preterites. 

jectives,  and  verbs  formed  in  their  turn  from  nouns  and  ad- 
jectives though  this  is  perhaps  the  most  interesting  and 
important  question  in  the  etymology  of  our  tongues.  The 
error  fallen  into  by  most  English  grammarians  has  resulted 
from  their  confining  themselves  to  tlie  appearances  of  the 
verbs  at  some  particular  time,  and  their  noj[^lucting  to  inquire 
how  and  whence  such  forms  arose,  and  what  assistance  might 
bo  gained  from  languages  cognate  to  their  own  :  in  order  to 
avoid  this  I  shall  call  up  the  whole  mass  of  Teutonic  lan- 
guages, from  the  earliest  period,  and  following  in  the  steps 
of  that  mighty  philologist  James  Griram,  attempt  to  sub- 
stitute a  rational  scheme  for  a  word,  by  using  the  aids  which 
history  offers.  For  it  must  be  quite  clear  to  every  one  who 
has  ever  studied  a  language  at  all,  that  a  great  number  of 
cases  are  not  to  be  explained  by  any  thing  which  he  at  any 
given  time  finds  in  the  language  itself;  the  English  student 
for  example  would  be  very  much  puzzled  if  he  were  aske<l 
to  say  how  the  word  rfay,  the  word  fnir,  the  word  brain 
came  to  mean  what  they  do.  But  (he  very  first  help  wliich 
he  would  clutch  at,  would  be  the  ho[ie  that  in  an  earlier  form 
of  the  language  he  might  find  a  key  to  their  meaning,  and 
that  a  less  corrupted  combination  of  vowels  and  consonants 
might  hint  at  the  real  signification  of  the  roots:  be  might 
possibly  find  a  ditliculty  in  discovering  the  secret  meaning 
of  the  ro<»ts  diig,  ftiff  and  brii^  by  which  the  conceptions 
on  which  they  rested  were  introduccil  into  the  words  diig 
(Gothic  Dags)  fiig-er  and  hriig-efi^  but  he  would  at  any 
rate  not  be  quite  so  likely  to  blunder  as  if  he  eontemplatcil 
the  ai  in  those  modern  forms  as  a  true  vowel.  To  take 
another  and  commoner  instance;  how  much  painful  labour 
has  not  been  bestowed  upon  the  simple  expression  "  me- 
thinks**  by  those  who  could  not  reconcile  the  apparent  error 
of  grammar  with  what  they  knew  of  the  habits  of  the  lan- 
guage. Yet  when  we  reflect,  that  it  was  not  till  a  late  j>eri<Kl 
tliat  the  form  think  spread  itself  l>eyond  its  limits,  and  in- 
volved a  Rimilar  yet  distinct  verb,  that  the  Gothic  jpugkjan. 
Anglo-Saxon  jjyncan.  Ohd.  Dunhan.  Nhd.  Diinken.  rideri,  is 
as  far  removed  in  form  as  meaning  from  the  Gothic  bagkian. 
Ohd.  Denhan.  Anglo-Saxon  |)encan.  Nhd.  Denken.  t^gitare^ 
our  difficulty  vanishes  at  once.     "  Me-thinks"'  is  then  a  dat. 


I 


1 


On  English  Prteterites. 

with  an  impernonal  verb,  and  is  actually  translated  by  our 
expression  *'  Me-seems."  For  further  distinction  I  will  add, 
that  the  pra^tcritc  of  |?yncan  was  }?uhtf,  that  of  Jicncon, 
l^ohte.  History  of  a  language,  and  of  uU  the  languages, 
which  belong  to  the  same  race,  all  these  languages  being 
considered  only  in  the  light  of  dialects,  mere  variations  of 
a  theoretic  form.,  is  therefore  the  best  refuge  we  have  in 
any  etymological  perplexity. 

There  are  in  the  Teutonic  language  (embracing  all  the 
languages  and  all  their  periods  from  the  fourth  to  the  nine^ 
teenth  century)  but  two  kinds  of  verbs:  the  oldest  and 
the  youngest  are  in  this  alike.  The  first  kind  from  a  capa- 
bility of  forming  their  priEterites  out  of  themselves  without 
the  addition  uf  any  foreign  element  may  be  called  strong: 
the  second,  add  a  new  conception  in  the  shape  of  a  syllable 
and  are  called  weak.  The  strong  are  again  of  two  kinds. 
I,  Such  as  form  their  prceterite  by  affecting  the  first  conso- 
nant of  the  root,  2,  those  that  affect  the  vowel,  according  to 
a  particular  relation,  and  leave  the  consonant  as  it  was.  In 
the  Gothic,  two  conjugations  partake  of  both  forms.  The 
maoner  in  which  the  first  consonant  of  the  root  was  affected 
in  Gothic  was  by  duplication  of  it,  with  an  intermediate 
vowel;  and  these  pure  conjugations  were  four  in  number; 
as   follows: 


I  St    salt-a  saiio, 
3d.    h^t-a  uoco. 
Sd.   st&ut-a  percutio. 
4th.  slt'p-a  dormio. 


pr.  B&i-salt. 
h^i-h^it. 
stii-stSut. 
s^-zlep. 


part,  salt-ans. 
h^it-ans. 
stiiut-ans. 
slep-ans. 


The  two  which  follow  both  double  the  first  consonant,  and 
change  the  vowel. 

5th.  l^i-a  irrideo.  pr.  Ui-lo  part.  Ui-ans. 

fith.  gret-a  ploro.  gAi-gr6t  gret-ana. 

I  have  said  that  in  the  remaining  strong  conjugations  which 
from  the  Gothic  to  the  English  of  the  present  day  arc  neither 
more  nor  less  than  six  in  number,  the  method  of  expressing 
past  time  is  by  a  change  in  the  vowel,  and  that  these  changes 
are  according  to  a  particular  relation.  This  relation  I  shall 
proceed  to  explain  in  terms  of  the  Gothic,  after  first  shewing 
the  force  of  the  Gothic  vowels  in  Anglo-Soxon.  The  Teu- 
tonic  language  possesses  ten    vowels:    three  short;   »,   i,   u, 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  .3  B 


I 


Chi  EngtUk  Frceferiles. 


and  neven  luug;  l',  o,  u,  ai,  au»  ci,  iu.  These  uppear  tn 
this  pure  form  i»  the  Gothic  only,  for  as  early  as  the  ninth 
century,  the  Old  High  Dutch,  changed  a  when  followed  by 
i,  into  c '.  In  the  same  langimgc  o  arose  occasionally  out 
of  u,  and  e  out  of  i.  The  Anglo-Saxon  a,  according  to  par- 
ticular circuin stances,  became  e  (that  is  whoi  followed  in 
another  syllable  by  i),  or  a  (written  in  MSS.  re)  before  cer- 
tain ciHiibinations  of  consonants  ;  or  ra,  before  h,  r,  1,  and 
combinations  of  these  letters ;  lastly  before  mm,  nn  and 
certain  other  duplications  and  combinations  of  consonants  it 
deepened  into  o.  In  like  manner  the  Anglo-Saxon  i,  before 
b,  r,  1  became  e  or  eo,  as  before  h  and  r,  the  same  i  had  itt 
Gothic  itself  become  ai.  Before  other  consonants  it  cither 
remained  in  Anglo-Saxon  as  i,  or  was  duHeo  as  in  Ohd  into 
%  -  U  which  in  Gothic  before  h  and  r,  assumed  the  fc»in 
aA  and  the  sound  of  o,  either  remained  in  Anglo-Saxon  ii, 
or  o,  or  if  followed  by  i  in  another  syllahle,  assumed  the 
sound  of  the  German  u  and  was  written  y.  The  Gothic  e 
found  a  representative  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  k,  (tjuite  distinct 
from  ii,  and  generally  marked  «'  in  Anglo-Saxon  MSS.  and 


<  This  the  GBima  graiiunariKJB  Ruice  Klopttock,  call  Umiaut,  at  Ahout-*ound, 
Exumples  oi  the  various  changes  here  nimtian>«i  will  luAkc  the  nwlter  clemr. 

a  into  c  Gat.  Balg^s  (ni)  pi.  balg.eU.     Ohd.  Pale.  pi.  Pelk>i.  etatM. 

u  into  o.  Got.  Ou>  (n)  tdoion. 

ihttoc.  UoL  6ib-a(r)i/mtni». 

AS.   a  into  I.  Got.  Har.j-U  (m)  fJvrnVin. 

■  into  a.  GoL  !>*%••  (m)  dUi. 


a  inu  ea.  Got.  Bam.  (n)  infatu. 

a  Into  o.  G«t.  Msn-H.  (m ) 

itntoeo.  Got.  Halr-ua  (oi)  jr/MtJM. 

i  into  e.  GoL  Wi|{-a  (m)  via, 

utatofk  Got  Dauh-tar.  (f) 

D  tolo  y.  Got.  Kan.L  (n) 

Got.  b  Into  s.  Goc  Ded.s  (f) 

OinUff.  Oou  B6t-an. 

flifitof.  GoL  na«.  (n)  Ring,  dmims. 

■^       4iimoa.  Got.  Uahil.«(f)  irirtM. 

ka  into  ei.  GoL  Linb-s  (m)  foiium. 

et  into  I.  Got.  Nei})  (m)  invidiam. 

iu  iato«4j  or  j.  Oct.  >iubs  (m )  fur. 

ji8.  ea  into  y  or  I.  Got.  Maht-s  (f )  potrniat. 

«4  into^.  GoL  Niiu|i.s  (f)  invidia. 
once  nci'id  which  wemB  formod  upon  the  ynstut  lu,  racher  than  the  prmu  du  or  the 
th«antic  v«rb  -olulwi,  niu>^ 


Uhd.  Kot.  dfus. 
Uhd.  Ktlp-a. 
A  8.     llcr.«. 

AS.    diig  ( the  sound  of  thii  vowel 
la  that  of  a  In  the  word  back). 
.4S.    B¥ara. 

Man. 

IJroro. 

\reg.  Ohd.  wee. 

Voht^CT.JUia. 

cyn  (for  cyn-nc)  jiaiw. 

iaA.  factum. 

Bet-an.  meliorari. 

Kin.  (n)  y\,  dcmua. 

Ham.  (m) 

ItSd.  <n). 

NiK 

mesht  and  miht. 

ncad.  and  ni'd.  (more  than 


AS. 

AS. 
AS. 
AS. 
AS. 
AtJ. 
AS. 
AS. 
AS. 
AH. 
AS. 
AH. 
AS. 
AS. 


i 


On  BngtUh  Preeteritei. 


so  also  by  Rask  who  write!)  a  a-.)  Gothic  6  became  c  or 
oUe  remained  6,  u  remained  as  it  waa  except  when  followed 
by  i,  which  converted  it  into  ^.  Gothic  lii  was  the  Ohd  ei, 
the  Anglo-Saxon  a.  Gothic  uu  was  the  long  Anglo-Saxon 
vowel  ek  (distinct  altogether  from  the  short  ca).  £i  became 
i;  iu  became  either  cd  or  ^.  Besides  these  changes  which 
are  universal,  ea  was  sometimes  in  more  modern  Anglo-Saxon 
replaced  by  y,  and  ea  by  y.  With  this  view  of  the  relative 
value  of  Gothic  or  Anglo-Saxon  vowels,  we  may  proceed  to 
«tate  the  forms  of  the  coujugation. 

There  being  these  ten  Gothic  vowels,  and  their  larger 
numlx?r  of  Anglo-Saxon  equivalents,  and  a  fixed  number  of 
consonant.s,  we  fihould  have  a  very  large  number  of  possible 
combinatiuns,  in  which  one  vowel  followed  by  one  consonant, 
and  one  vowel  followed  by  two  consonants  appeared.  Histo- 
rically speaking  However,  only  the  following  are  found  in 
the  roots  of  Gothic  or  any  other  Teutonic  verbs :  al.  am,  an. 
ar.  ap.  ab.  af.  at.  ad.  af?.  as.  ak.  ag.  ah — ^il.  im.  in.  air. 
(-ir).  ip.  ib.  if  iv.  it  id.  if.  is.  ik.  ig.  aih  (  =  ih). — ^ul.  um. 
un.  aur  (siur).  up.  ub.  uf.  uv.  ut.  ud.  u{?.  us.  uk.  ug. 
auh  (j=  uh). — el.  em.  6n.  er.  ep.  eb.  ef.  ct,  ed.  cjj.  es.  ck.  eg. 
ch — 61.  on.  or.  op.  6b.  of.  6t.  6d.  uj?.  ok.  6g.  6h — k\m.  Ain. 
aip.  aib.  aif.  ^iv.  liit.  aid.  aib.  ais.  aik.  iiig.  aih. — aup.  aub. 
auf,  duv.  £ut.  dud.  k\x^,  dus.   auk.  dug.  duh. — eim.  ein.  eip. 

eib.   eif.    eiv.  eit.  eid.    eib.   eia.   eik.  eig.  eih iup.   iub.   iuf. 

iuv.  int.  iud.  iuf.  ius.  iuk.  iug.  iuh.  These  are  the  only 
combinations  of  a  vowel  with  one  consonant  found  in  Gothic 
roots  ;  no  Gothic  root  can  end  in  more  than  two  consonants  ; 
and  though  I  am  inclined  on  this  point  to  dilTer  from  James 
Grimm,  and  to  say  that  no  Gothic  root  can  end  in  more 
than  one,  I  shall  waive  this  discussion  here,  and  proceed  to 
give  the  combinations  of  one  vowel  and  two  consonants  found 
in  a  Teutonic  verb ;  premising  that  the  only  consonants  so 
combined  are  the  following:  11.  ram.  nn.  rr.  pp.  tt.  kk.  Im. 
Ip.  lb.  If.  Iv.  It.  Id.  IJj.  Is.  Ik.  Ig.  Ih.  mp.  mb.  mf.  ms.  nt. 
nd.  nf>.  ns.  nk.  ng.  rm.  rn.  rp.  rb.  rf.  rt.  rd.  rjj.  rs.  rk. 
rg.  rb.  ft.  fs.  zd.  zg.  sp.  st.  sk.  ht.  hs.  Now  no  long 
vowel  stands  liefore  these  combinations,  so  that  a,  i,  and  u, 
alone  unite  with  them  in  fonuing  roots.  (Deut.  Granim. 
u.  5  &c.) 


378 


On  Engliah  PrcBteritea. 


The    above   combinations   are    arranged  in  the  following 
nuniier  in  the  renuuuing  six  strong  conjugations. 


Nft 

Pres. 

Prst.  sing. 

Prat,  pi 

ParL 

7. 

al  &c. 

61  Sec. 

61  &c. 

al.  Sec. 

8. 

eim.   Sic. 

dim  &C. 

im  &c. 

aim  &c. 

9. 

iup  &c. 

Aup  &c. 

up  8ec. 

up  &c. 

10. 

il.  &c. 

al  &c. 

el  &c 

il  &c. 

11. 

il.  &c. 

al.  &c. 

£1  &c. 

ul.  &c. 

IS. 

ilp.  &c. 

alp.  he. 

ulp  &c. 

ulp  &c. 

or  as  may  be  clearer  seen  in  an  example  of  each, 


7.  sak-a. 

8.  kein-a. 

9.  hiuf-a. 

10.  gi1)-a. 

11.  nim-a. 
la.  hilp-a. 


mcrepo. 

germino. 

pioro. 

do. 

sumo. 

Juvo. 


sok,  suk-um. 
kilin,  kain-um. 
hauf,  huf-um. 
gaf,  geb-um. 
nam,  nenuuni. 
halp,  hulp-um. 


sak-ans. 

kin-ans. 

huf-ans. 

gib-ans. 

nuni-ans. 

hul])-aus. 


Such  were  in  Gothic  the  twelve  conjugations  which  have 
been  nick-named  irregular.  Of  these  the  first  six  or  re- 
duplicative, exist  as  such  only  in  Gothic,  though  as  late 
as  the  Anglo-Saxon  of  the  seventh  century,  traces  of  the 
second  remained  in  the  word  heht,  or  as  it  should  be  divided 
he-ht,  the  Gothic  hai-h^it  i^ocavi.  But  the  fact  of  an  older 
organization  of  these  verbs  having  perished  seems  proved 
in  Anglo^•Saxon  by  the  obaen'ation  that  very  few  of  them 
fall  under  the  six  last  named  forms,  or  have  gone  over  into  the 
weak  conjugations  in  -ede  and  -ode  ;  and  this  it  was  natural 
for  them  to  do  at  any  rate,  in  process  of  time.  Hut  though 
they  ceased  to  be  reduplicative,  they  still  did  not  cease  to 
be  regular,  as  will  be  seen  by  comparing  with  the  Gothic 
reduplicatives  above  given,  the  following  Anglo-Saxon  verbs. 


1.  fealle.  cado.  feol,  feoUon.  fcullcn. 

f.  swfipe.  rerro.  sweop,   swc6pon.       sw&p«n. 


I 
1 


On  English   Preterites. 


hleApen. 

slscpcn. 

blawcn. 


3    Kledpe.  ealto.  hlcop,  lilcopon. 

4.  sletpe.  dormio.  sl^p^  slepon. 

5.  blawe.  spiro.  bleow,  bleowou. 

6.  Seems  to  have  gone  entirely  over  into  the  fourth 
grate;  gret,  grGton  ;    gra-ter,  -ploro^. 

With  regard  to  the  third  and  fourth  of  these  conjugations 
I  cannot  agree  with  Mr  Raak.  That  great  and  lamented 
scholar  considers  the  vowel  in  the  prffiterite,  short.  lie 
thinks  that  the  vulgar  pronunciation  lep  and  step  represented 
the  old  Anglo-Saxon  sounds,  and  that  to  counterbalance  the 
unpleasant  shortness,  in  Old  English  a  ^  was  added  at  the 
end ;  to  this  it  is  answered  that  had  tliis  been  so,  the  t 
would  not  have  replaced  -en  in  the  participle,  and  that  this 
one  fact  proves  these  verbs  as  many  others  were,  to  have 
been  in  process  of  time  transferred  to  the  weak  form  of  con- 
jugation. But  returning  to  the  true  and  finn  conjugations, 
those  last  six,  which  no  time  has  availed  to  alter,  whose  vowel 
relations  lie  at  the  deep  foundation  of  the  oldest  nouns  and 
adjectives  we  have,  and  without  a  knowledge  of  whose  forms, 
we  cannot  hope  to  understand  a  single  step  of  Teutonic 
etymology,  returning  tn  them  let  us  see  what  alteration  the 
Anglo-Saxon  has  made,  and  whether  he  alone  has  left  a 
system  which  rules  the  tongues  of  the  Old,  the  Middle  and 
New  High  Dutch,  the  Old  Saxon,  the  Middle  and  New 
Low-Dutch,  the  Middle  and  New  Netherlandish,  and  the 
Old  Frisian,  lastly  the  languages  of  Scandinavia,  the  Old 
Norse,    and  its  daughters  Dansk  and  Swedish. 

for,  for-on.  far-en. 

bail,  bld-(in.  bid-en. 

creip,  crup-on.  crop-en. 

Bwaf,  swcefon.  swef-cn. 

nam,  nani-on.  nom-en. 

healp,  hulpon.  holp-en. 

As  I  mean  to  carry  this  enquiry  further  than  Grimm 
from  want  of  materials  was  enabled  to  do,  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary  before   we  proceed  to   the    Old   English,    that   is   to 

*  Vet  f^i'Han.  tam^ntari,  Beowulf  lOJ.  trhkh  must  have  gone  over  into  (he 
niolli  coDJugxiion.  This  fonu  in  howcvrr  not  »o  true  m  (irKtaa.  Uot.  UK-Uui,  Mid 
totuetiinca  though  Itss  twrrectly  Omtan. 


7. 

far-e. 

prttficiscor 

8. 

bid-e. 

e-T}tecto. 

9. 

credpe. 

repo. 

10. 

8wef-e. 

sopior. 

M. 

nim-c. 

sumo. 

12. 

hiilp-e. 

juvo. 

r 

r 


380  On  EtigiUh  Praterites, 

say  the  language  between  the  eleventh  and  fourteenth  cen- 
turies, to  say  a  few  words  respecting  the  new  forms  of  the 
vowels  which  were  then  introduced.  For  even  as  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  differs  in  appearance  from  the  Gothic,  so  does  the 
English  of  that  period  from  the  Anglo-Saxon,  and  when  once 
the  corresponding  souudii  liave  been  ascertained,  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  changes  its  system  just  as  little. 

Yet  before  we  step  from  the  hard,  and  as  it  were  iron- 
bound  system  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  into  what  at  first  sight 
appears  a  chaos  of  indigcstc^d  and  capricious  variations,  a 
word  or  two  may  be  not  impertinent,  with  regard  to  our 
authorities,  when  treating  of  what  we  consider  a  new  lan- 
guage. It  ia  no  doubt  matter  of  bitter  regret  to  all  whose 
love  for  the  deep  pursuits  of  etymology,  lias  led  them  to 
trace  downwards  the  progress  of  tlie  English  tongue,  that 
so  few  documents  have  been  supplied  to  them,  in  aid  of  their 
tou-often  wearisome  task ;  they  cannot  but  have  heard  it 
whispered  that  in  our  collegiate  and  public  libraries,  a  vast 
and  complete  scries  of  materials  exists,  which  if  once  ar- 
ranged, and  given  to  the  light,  would  furnish  a  history  of 
every  variation,  and  bridge  over  every  gulph  which  now 
starts  up  beneath  their  feet,  perplexing  and  amazing  them. 
And  knowing  this,  they  must  feel  that  the  example  of  Ger- 
many, France,  and  Denmark,  might  worthily  have  been 
followed  by  ourselves,  if  leaving  the  consideration  of  mere 
every-<lay  profit,  we  liad  bestowed  some  little  pains  upon 
the  reproduction  of  these  national  treasureu.  For  History, 
for  Theology,  for  Art,  vast  stores  are  yet  lurking  in  the  con- 
cealment of  ancient  manuscripts,  difficult  in  themselves  to  he 
decyphered,  known  by  name  to  the  curious,  and  as  the  world 
judges,  the  idle  only,  and  too  often  shut  with  a  jealous  care 
from  the  gaze  of  those  who  would  uuroll  them  before  their 
countrymen,  whose  true  and  most  sure  records  they  are  in 
times  which  the  self-satisfied  indifference  of  the  day,  brands 
with  the  name  of  barbarous.  To  such  students  as  these 
I  think  I  shall  be  rendering  a  service  by  noting  some  of  the 
documents  which  from  the  nature  of  their  contents,  will  be 
useful  in  forming  a  systematic  history  of  our  tongue.  The  first 
deflection  from  the  pure  Anglo-Saxon,  may  be  said  to  occur 
in  the  later  years  of  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  from  the  year  1100 


I 
I 

4 


On  Etigtish  Preeteril^- 

or  ft  little  earlier :  at  the  time  when  as  we  know  from  Stow, 
"  the  wliole  land  began  under  the  king  [ICdwnrd  the  Con- 
fessftr]  and  other  Normans  broxight  in,  to  leave  off  the 
£ng1ish  rites,  and  in  many  things  to  imitate  the  manners 
of  the  French.  All  the  noble  men  tooke  it  to  he  a  great 
point  of  gentrie  in  their  courts  to  speake  the  French  tongue, 
to  make  their  charters  and  deeds  after  the  manner  of  the 
French,  and  to  be  ashamed  of  their  own  custom  and  use, 
as  well  in  this  as  in  many  other  things."  Nearly  following 
upon  this  is  a  MS.  in  our  University  Library  (I.  i.  I.  18) 
containing  lives  of  Saints,  prose  and  verse,  four  and  twenty 
chapters  of  .■Elfric's  Genesis,  and  sermons ;  the  last  of  which 
being  for  the  most  part  modernized  copies  of  jElfric,  of  whose 
homilies  a  pyre  Saxon  copy  is  found  amongst  many  others 
in  the  same  library  (G-.g.  S.  28)  are  capable  of  a  useful  com- 
parison ;  while  the  Genesis  may  be  collated  with  the  copy 
printed  by  Thwaites  from  an  Oxford  MS,,  and  tiie  lives  of 
Saints  and  many  of  the  homilies  usefully  compared  with  a 
multitude  of  such  remains  in  our  various  libraries,  and  par- 
ticularly  in  the  Bodleian,  and  Cotton  collections,  in  the  last 
of  which,  a  ct*py»  (Jul.  K.  vij)  not  differing  iniipi»rtantly 
in  date,  language  or  contents,  from  our  own,  is  to  be  found. 
v^lfnc''8  Grammar  is  found  in  many  libraries,  more  or  less 
complete  ;  the  Cotton  collection  possesses  two  copies  differing 
materially  in  |M>iut  of  date  :  so  also  the  library  of  Trinity 
College,  from  the  earlier  of  which  (R.  y.  I7)  written  shortly 
after  the  Norman  usurpation,  a  very  large  number  of  Saxon 
and  French  interlinear  glosses  may  Iw  gained.  Btit  passing 
over  these  and  other  authorities  in  the  Cotton,  King's,  and 
the  several  University  collections,  we  come  to  a  document 
of  most  unmeasured  importance;  1  mean  Lajanion's  Chro- 
nicle of  which  there  are  two  copies  in  the  Cotton  collection'. 

'  We  ieam  from  •  pitMpectui  Utely  issued,  thai  thi*  noble  record  of  Old  England 
it  «boui  to  be  edited  under  llie  auspices  of  tlie  Anliquariiin  Society.  With  all  giatilude 
lo  the  Society  for  ihia  boon^  for  «iich  it  is,  conferred  upon  Kn)iclish  »cbo)ara,  I  cannot 
but  regret  that  sonie  8axon  fidiolar  was  not  lo  be  found  amon^  thetn,  to  whom  tho  task 
of  fcivinic  it  to  us.  migfai  have  been  oommitted.  For  Afr  .^Iiidtl«n,  whcwe  name  appean 
u  the  intended  editor^  thouf>h  a*  far  sa  I  know,  a  liborioui  and  pTaiKewnrihy  enquirer 
into  the  middle  period  of  our  language,  ui  unfortunately  a  stranger  to  Anglo-Saxon  ; 
and  the  language  of  Lajamon  must  be  dnccndcd  upon,  notriun  to.  An  eridence  of 
the  difficulty  that  necoaarily  preuet  upon  a  penoHf  coming  uDpteptnd  with  6«ton  to 


On  Engluth  Prceterites. 


The  earlier  of  these  (Cal.  A.  ix)  was  in  all  probability  written 
towards  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century  :    the  later  of  thein, 

the  cotuideration  of  Lajamon,  wit)  b«  found  in  Mr  Ma<lden*s  notes  to  Havclocb  th* 
Pknr,  published  l>y  hltn  tmder  tli«  patrgiuge  of  the  Koxburf^h  Club.  It  ciccun.  p.  inS. 
where  in  order  lo  prove  thai  seaU  fiiniied  \vux  of  the  dsbitici  wt  before  our  forefsUKn 
in  the  twelfth  ccntiuy,  the  following  pwuiage  i«  quoted,  (L^amon,  foL  45^.  coL  %). 

iiiliijene  warou  lo  fan  mt\e 

twiclf  ^luend  ruSeren  telir 

uid  ^ritli  bundled  hirrtcs 

afad  «I  twa  foole  hinden. 
Now  the  word  »tle  here  Ss  not,  seol,  j>hoea„  but  Bid,  bt>n»a,feli»,  the  Goth,  a^lu, 
LucB,15.  Mark.  7,22.  Luc.  «,  35,  Ac.  The  Old.  H.  d.  Rftl,  nalic  in  composition, 
ftnd  the  Old  Saxon  snlic  in  the  umc  Letting  alone  tlterefore  the  copula  which  Mr 
MiddcD  must  have  inaerted  in  order  to  make  any  &cn»c  at  all  or  the  pnuagc,  we  tihall 
not  read,  twclrc  thousand  bultockx  and  seals,  but  twelve  thousand  good  bullocks :  and 
we  shall  aluo  chink  honui  ot/fti^  a  better  epithet  to  a  hero  than  phoea,  when  we  read 
in  the  same  I*aj«nwn  "  ^ac  Ilrutus  ^a  tfU  ,■  to  I^are  >«  woWe,"  So  in  the  Tcry 
first  page  of  the  >I8.  we  may  incline  u>  believe,  that  Lajamon  wan  thinking  uf  a  pie*. 
lant  rcaidencc^  when  he  uid,  "  ttl  ^u  him  t^uhle,"  and  not  at  all  that  be  nccnied  u% 
htroftdf  to  be  a  teal.  Or  a  very  few  para^rapha  further,  that  when  Asaaracuit  receiTcd, 
"w/#  ^reo  castles'*  from  his  father,  they  were  only  three  good  costlca.  While  upon 
this  subject  I  will  fumifih  'Mi  Maddea  with  a  better  cranKlation  and  anran^fcmcni  i>f » 
portion  uf  Beowulf,  than  that  which  T  auppu^ie  I'runi  the  hand  of  uiine  injudiciaus 
irieDd,  he  has  inxertcd  at  p.  Ifl7,  am^ng  the  same  notes.  At  the  same  time  it  wilt  be 
but  just  to  the  author  of  that  performance  to  give  his  reading  alao;  which  I  correct  in 
columns  3  and  4. 


\ 


P.  lff|.  loCulnnqnin*       On  i'tXa'i  kin   liteamirl. 
ftntil 
front  cwMlin  fe-    thli  iln  thomiL-ldi)  avai|h 

wiwc  ed 

sn  irlhtan  tfar  nern*)  Lord 

^  ^  IM  Abel    if^Afm  U'Ao  AM  ikw. 

In  (bat  wt  of  hatred, 
but  hlni  lAx  off 
die  CKUor  cillciL 
TVn-/i«yi  many  kilidt  n/ 

mm, 
frcm  thence  un-/ntitfii! 


at  itc-feih  he 

actwhliM  Ekh 
(br-wnMnsMd 
to  ^fmMae  mma- 

rynn# 
Tnm  ^tJtan   tin. 

tydn* 
calJ*  oa.wocMi 


jtoM  ewwlm  (•wiHO 

«oedtUiwn 

^  ^  ba  AM  ■!<«. 

Hcfe-hali  b«  ^Mte  fUi- 

•c  br  hlcc  fear  tat-tnwc 
maoi  tot  ^j  maiM 

Tot/t^fime  tmim, 
fiuioa  uit.t)>dnu 

munu  and  ylT* 
and  atmnu 
kwlrcc  id  licuiia*) 
pa  wis  RTwhr  wuiiaaij. 

n>«l  bin  bM    lean    for. 
HHJrt. 
foU  13tU  VUd.  A.  a*. 


On  Calo'i  kin 
tba  BUFte  a*vnff*d 
{UmI  «t«nial  Lortl. 
In  thai  he.  Aticl  ilnr. 

Nor   rrjotnd   be   In  ttas 
fnid, 

but  tir  nXIrA  bira  ate, 
tlic  CTfatof,  for  tlw  vrkk- 

odiicu, 
fratn  nianUiid. 
chnm  nil- progenia 
allaKMe 
luta  mhI  fVt 
vtAaratty. 
Mucli  Ktant* 

ihm  wamd  amliut  s<Mt 
br  a  Wing  prrtod. 
Ii«    I  linn,    ihmKtm,    t^ 


all  BTMa  <uiok  their  nri- 

«  and  )U«  «ot«(H*  and  rifi 

aiul  areata*  and  mnnittr*. 

nrylMgl  (can  1*1*1  Sucb  (wen  thc^  lUar* 

^wltf  gadawBB-  Ota  tmiiM  Ooi  imre 

nnn 

laiuie  |>ng«  alofifprrM: 

ht  bn\  pw  Itan  he    thecn   (Ala   ban   r«- 

rMHTcatd.  VHf«r<d 

Mill.  (»w/ffl«).  The  Old  Saxon  Mia.  Isl.  Mein.  ought  never  to  have  been  coo- 
fonnded  with  any  form  of  monig  (mu//M),  not  is  it  easy  to  conceive  how  the  dat.  e. 
man-cynnc  could  have  been  supposed  right  in  connection  with  any  case  of  that  adj ; 
or  how  the  maac.  »ub»t.  iin-lydras  could  ever  have  passed  for  an  adj.^^^ES  ^e  is  uni- 
vermlly  to  be  rendered,  btxausf,  on  account  of  Ac.  and  a  careful  distinction  is  do  doubt 
10  be  made  between  lien  (o  roan  ]  and  lei'in  (a  rtmrrd).  _       - 


On  Rnglinh  Prateritet. 

(Otho.  C.  xiii)  tlKHigh  often  Mipplying  us  with  vnltiablo 
glosses  upon  thf  former,  was  evidently  copietl  from  it  by  a 
person  to  whom  many  of  the  expressions  tiatl  become  unta- 
telligible,  and  who  therefore  whenever  he  came  to  a  diRicult 
passage,  omitted  it  aJtogether.  In  all  the  MSS.  above- 
mentioned  the  inflections  and  genders  of  the  nouns,  are  still 
preserved,  though  by  no  means  correctly  in  all  cases.  The 
usual  variations  which  a  language  undergoes  when  about  to 
lose  its  terminations  &c.  are  observable;  for  example  a  dull 
e  takes  place  of  roost  vowels  in  the  inflections,  the  m  of  the 
dut.  pi.  is  changed  into  n,  and  the  vowels  which  had  be<^ome 
modified  (Germ.  nm~hut)  by  the  operation  of  i,  recover  their 
original  form ;  in  adtlition  to  these  changes,  we  have  the 
feminine  inflection  grutluully  perishing  away,  or  replaced  by 
the  masculine;  neuter  pluraU  taking  the  masculine  inflection; 
and  above  all  weak  nuuus  (which  once  made  all  their  obliijue 
cases  in. -an)  transferred  to  the  strong  masculine  fonn  :  (gen. 
-ea.  dat.  -e.)  The  distinction  between  adjectives  definitely 
and  indefinitely  used  (cmce  marked  by  a  difference  in  the 
declension)  is  often  neglected ;  and  many  verbs  which  once 
were  strong  have  past  over  into  the  weak  form.  But  the 
greatest  apparent  change  is  naturally  in  the  vowels,  and  the 
signs  by  which  they  are  represented.  Taking  a  period,  (the 
twelfth  century),  when  the  variations  seem  to  iiave  somewhat 
settled,  those  with  whicli  we  are  concerned,  appear  briefly 
thus. 

Got.  a.  OE.  a.  ae.  ea.  c.         AS.  a.  a.  ea.  e. 

i.  ai.  i.  e,  &y.  i.  e.  eo. 

u.  au.  u.  o.  y.  i.  u.  o.  y. 

au.  e^.  e.  ^.  ei.  v.  ei.  y. 

iu.  ijci.  e.  ^.  i?d.  J. 

£.  a.  c.  a*.  le. 

k\.  k,at.6.ia.  ei.  a. 

6.  te.  f.  6.  e.  6. 

ei.  1.  J.  i. 

u.  O.  ou.  f.  fi.  f. 

Using  these  vowels,  one  or  other  of  which  is  found  for  its 

corre5^ponding  one,  in    thf  above  named  twelve  conjugations, 

and  first  in  the  reduplicative,  we  have  such  forms  aa  follow; 

Vol.  II.   No.  5.  3  C 


1 


I.  fallen,  (inf.) 
-S.  hfiten. 


3.  hledpen. 
*.  elaepen. 
5.  blawcn. 


slep. 
blew.  ble6w 


mnd  in  the  six  last. 

7.  slajen. 
faren. 

8.  drifen. 

riden. 

9.  for-leose) 

lese  I 
to.  que^en 
tl.  cunien. 
comer 
12.  finden. 


len.) 
I  en  j 


ginnen. 


sloj  (sloh). 
t&r, 

fdrfif 

\later  drove 
rfld. 

for-le£s 

com.  1 
cuine) 
funde. 

fgan 

Jgon 


On  English  Praterites. 

ftfol,  feollen. 

Ihaihte 
heihte. 
hate, 
bote, 
hlep.  hleop.  (hliip)en. 


en. 
en. 


en. 
en. 

drif-en. 

rid-en. 

for-loren. 

quc^en. 

comen. 

funden. 

gunncn. 


hleitpen. 
slspeii. 
bl&ven. 
bid  wen. 

islajen.  (slawea) 

i-faren. 

i-d  riven. 

riden. 
for-loren. 

iqiic^cn. 

iicumcn. 
i  comen. 
i-funden. 

i-gunnen. 


and  all  these  are  to  be  found  in  the  first  named  Codex  of 
Lajamon.  The  Middle  English,  that  is  to  say,  Chaucer  and 
the  Romancers,  still  keep  to  the  law  in  their  strong  conju- 
gations, varying  the  vowel  of  the  praeterite  only  as  the  same 
vowel  varied  in  every  other  word ;  but  generally  mulcting 
the  in6nitive  and  prseterite  plural  of  its  final  n*.  I  refer 
the  reader  to  J.  Grimm's  Deutsche  Grammatik  for  the  form* 
of  the  Middle  and  New  English  strong  conjugations,  Vol.  i. 
pp.  981  and  HQi.  observing   that   excepting  where  the  vowel 


■  A  uneful  \V\ag  by  the  vfty  to  beu  In  mind  when  wc  md  Chaucer;  for  Uic  final  « 
oiie  meets  with  u  of  two  kinds;  1.  It  ii  a  liftn  that  tlic  vowel  next  before  U  1b  Irnifc, 
as  in  reiAc  ( ftiHxilium )^  Anglo-Sixon  rvd,  and  in  ttiin  cau  It  may  not  be  pTDnouDcetl; 
2.  It  represents  a  pcrlahMl  oiHection,  as  t!tfi-e  ( IrmpuiJ^  Angio>Saxon  tim^  ban^ 
fmOTKjf  Anglo-Saxon  ban>a,  Iuf.«  famor}^  AMglo-Saxon  luf-u,  luf-«  (amare)t 
Anglo>Saxon  luf-an,  and  then  it  must  be  pronotinced ;  for  no  doubt  long  after  th« 
inflectiotui  themielve*  had  periahed  frotii  the  written  LsngtiagCt  they  were  retained  in 
the  feeling  of  6peikei»  and  readen. 


On  Eiiglith  Prateritea. 

of  the  prseterite  singular  has  been  put  out  of  its  place  by 
that  of  the  praeterite  plural,  the  rule  still  holds  even  to  our 
day ;  and  even  this  does  not  always  occur,  *.  g.  wc  say  sing, 
sang  or  sung;  but  sung  always  in  the  participle  (lath  cuuj.) 
However  the  distinction  between  the  singular  and  plural  has 
perished  entirely.  So  much  for  the  first  or  stronfz  conjuga- 
tion of  verbs.  Returning  now  to  the  second  division  of  the 
subject,  namclV)  such  verbs  as  fonn  tlieir  prceterite  by  the 
addition  of  a  syllabic,  and  waiving  all  discussion  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  same  syllabic,  all  that  requires  remark  is  this; 
that  such  verbs  form  a  separate,  an  independent,  and  as  it 
apjwars,  a  younger  class.  This  we  assert  in  spite  of  Pro- 
fessor Rask's  opinion  (Grain,  by  B.  Thorpe,  i.vn.)  whu  calls 
against  us  the  Arabic  verbs.  Now  in  reply  we  say  that  by 
younger  we  do  not  intend  a  question  of  time,  for  as  wc  are 
informed,  the  Sanskrita  itself  possesses  a  preponderating  num* 
ber  of  such  verbs,  and  as  we  know,  the  Gothic  abounds  in 
them;  but  we  mean  a  form  of  a  derivative  nature.  And 
this  we  say,  I.  Because  the  scheme  of  Teutonic  roots  is  com- 
mon to  the  strong  verbs,  and  to  the  oldest  forms  of  the  nouns; 
2.  Because  no  weak  verb  ever  in  process  of  time  became 
strong,  while  strong  verbs  do  become  weak  ;  'A.  Because 
foreign  words  taken  into  the  language  arc  inflected  weak ; 
4.  Because  the  verbs  formed  from  adjectives  or  nouns  follow- 
ing the  strong  form  are  inflected  weak  ;  and,  5.  Because  the 
active  verbs  formed  upon  the  praiterites  of  the  strong  verbs, 
and  having  a  modi6e<l  meaning,  are  likewise  so  conjugated. 
Of  these  matters  more  anon.  Before  treating  of  them  I  shall 
give  the  Gothic  weak  piu-adignis,  tracing  their  descent  as 
above. 

In  all  the  three  Gothic  weak  conjugations  the  consonant 
d  apjwars ;  the  conjugations  are  distinguished  by  the  vowel 
which  precedes  it.     The  first  has  i ;    e.  g. 

far-jan  (nnvigare).     Praet.  sing,  far-ida. 
the  second  has  6 ;    e.  g. 

salb-6n  (ungere).  salb-oda. 

the  third  is  distinguished  by  Ai ;    e.g. 

hat><ui   (habere).  liab-Aida. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  compresses  these  into  two,  one  taking  -e, 
the  other  -6  for  its  distinctive  vowel;    to  wit, 


On  English  Preeleritei. 


1.  cwel-j-an  (cwellan).  (necare).    cwelede  (cwdde). 

S.  5ceau-j-an  (intneri).  sccaw-ode. 

The  Old  English  (with  exceptions)  the  Middle  English,  and 
the  NeWj  infiect  all  these  verbs  in  a  plain  and  toneless  -ed. 
The  reader  will  judge  how  far  this,  the  rej^ufar  conjugation, 
ought  to  have  supersecled  the  remaining  twelve;  and  how 
far  the  language  has  lost  by  the  change.  One  small  advan- 
tage has  no  doubt  been  gained  in  some  cases  where  an  old 
strong  verb  has  become  fveak ;  and  this  is,  that  the  mean- 
ings have  been  divided,  the  original,  and,  as  it  were,  self- 
created  impulse  ha^  remained  with  the  old  form,  the  active 
and  outward  sense  has  been  transferred  to  the  new;  for  in- 
stance, the  following  verbs,  neuter  in  their  strong,  active  in 
their  weak  form,   will  explain  and  justify  my  remark  . 

{Rssk  p.  113.) 
yman  (read  irn«n) 
byman  (rcadbiroAn) 
diinon 
UBcan 


ItCgn 
lltlBI 

4dfiB 

lldu 

faUm 

fl!an«n 

bugui  (bcui^ui) 
Una. 

mean 


Preex. 
am  (tA  run) 
bun  (lo  bitrn,  arrfrrr) 
dnuic  (todrinc) 
smnc  (to  sink,  nrui.) 


Inum  (to  make  or  let  run). 
blmin  ( 10  make  lo  biini)  urtrf. 
dicnmn  (ID  gir«  to  drink]  drtmh. 
kucui  (to  link,  acl.) 
Icqtan  (to  Uy)  make  tv  Ue. 
MtUui  (to  Mt)  rrmke  to  rit. 
drvfun  (to  di»pene). 
ImiKD  (to  lead)  make  to  move, 
i-nenn  {\a  nUe,  rear)  moke  to  rut, 
fyllan  (tncsfti  down,  fell)  maketofiiB* 
wyUiin  (to  make  boil). 
A-fligan  (la  put  toftight)  maketaff. 
brib(tobow,b(mtl,ii/-u/.)   bigan  (to  bccd,  ifff.)  uuike  (»  htiw, 
(ive  (to  go)  llrraJi  (te  convey)  make  to  go. 

woe  (lo  wake,  neut.)  wcccan(to  wAke,«xcite)mnic  w  wafcc. 


Ug  (to  lii:) 

silt  (to  Bit) 

druf  (to  drive*) 

US  (go  by  tea,  woverc) 

A-ras  (to  arise) 

a«n    (to  fall) 

wfoll  (to  boil,  nrut.) 

flcjlh  (t©  fly) 


Most  of  these  arc  formed  upon  the  prieterites  of  the  strong 
verbs ;  this  I  allow,  but  we  have  instances  where  the  same 
verb  has  two  distinct  mtanings,  as  it  ii  weak  or  strong ;  for 
example,  the  German  sclunclzen  (to  melt)  if  strong  is  neuter^ 
if  weak,  active.  So  we  use  the  word  heJiold,  if  weak  in  a 
transitive  sense,  if  strong  in  a  subjective;  that  is  to  say,  in 
its  participle  only  ;  I  was  beheld  by  hira,  but  I  am  beholden 
to  him. 

T   have  said    that  foreign   words   when   receive<l    into  the 
language  are   inflected  weak  ;    an  example  of  which  shall  lie 


*  DriTan  is  very  ohua  active,  liui  its  neuter  scttsc  U  obvious  in  such  exprcasioni  a^ 
"10  drire  before  tlic  wind,"  ttr.  iL    Uf    '  ^' 


Oh  English  i'vcetentes. 

the  French,  adouber,  Sp.  adobar,  which  wc  call  duhb,  and 
which  as  car]y  ns  the  Saxon  Chronicle  (An.  I08o.)  was  con- 
jugated dubhade.  Tliat  weak  forms  progress  may  he  seen  in 
Shalcspcare's  dupped  for  did  up,  donned  for  did  on,  and  in 
what  I  have  olsewiiere  Been,  to  dout,  for  do  out'.  I  have 
obser%'ctI  one  word,  and  at  present  one  only,  which  in  old 
and  tniat-worthy  documents  appears  to  possess  both  forms, 
yet  one  meaning:  If  the  strong  fornj  docs  not  perhaps  confine 
itself  to  the  sense  sunpendOy  the  weak  to  that  of  dependo. 
It  is  llie  Anglo-Suxoi]  verb  to  hang.  From  the  very  first  it 
was  a  strange  verb;  two  infinitives,  one  hon  (Goth,  hahan), 
another  liangan  (Ohd.  hankan),  made  their  appearance :  of 
these  the  latter  soon  disappeared,  and  at  the  same  time  fixed 
its  prieterite  heng  upon  the  usual  infinitive  hun,  indicative 
present  hu ;  though  Grimm  asserts  rather  too  broadly  that 
no  other  tense  of  hangan  remained,  it  is  certainf  thai  they 
were  very  rare.  13ut  in  Ueowulf  we  have  a  hangian,  (p.  104, 
125.  Ed.  Thorkel.)  which  we  roust  have  considered  a  weak 
verb,  even  had  we  wantwl  the  confirmation  which  we  find 
in  the  prieterite  hangode.  (Bt-ow.  p.  155.)  Lajamon  conti- 
nues to  use  the  two  forms.  Of  the  word  fangan,  which  is  in 
every  other  respect  similar  t<)  hangan,  I  am  not  at  present 
able  to  say  whether  it  did  or  did  not  appear  in  a  weak  form; 
for  such  an  expression  as  the  "fanged  wolf"  does  not  imply 
a  caught  wolf,  but  a  wolf  armed  with  fangs.  This  should 
be  enough,  little  as  it  is,  to  assure  the  reader  that  the  English 
verbs  arc  not  quite  so  irregular  as  he  may  have  been  led  to 
believe.  I  have  but  one  word  of  advice  to  give  him,  and 
that  is,  that  he  hasten  to  find  in  grammar  the  least  capricious, 
the  least  arbitrary  of  all  things :  but  that  he  do  not  trust 
to  a  form  of  language  whiuh  the  very  operation  of  time  itself, 
or  a  thousand  othrr  causes  from  without,  niuy  have  altered 
widely  from  its  ancient  condition.  Above  all,  that  in  every 
difficulty  he  seek  those  ancient  forms,  and  the  history  of 
the  tongiie   which  he  is  investigating :   he  will  find  the  study 


*  Briogan  i«  given  by  J.  Urimni  as  u  verb  of  the  twelfth  conjugation,  us  wHl 
M  t  weak  verb  (brtn;n>"-  br'ihic).  I  hare  met  with  tlie  word  bntngcn  in  the  Cod. 
Kx.  M.  t<*.  and  thi»  whctlirr  the  pBrticiplf,  or  an  cnor  of  the  irinscTibcr  for  bnin- 
gun  (priM.  [il.)  is  no  doiibi  a  sitonfi  font). 


^ 


ON  THE  BIRTH-YEAR  OF  DEMOSTHENES. 


Most  of  our  readers  are  aware,  that  Mr  Clinton  has 
devoted  a  chapter  (xx.)  of  tlie  Appendix  to  the  first  volume 
of  his  Fasti,  to  the  discussion  of  some  disputed  questions 
relating  to  Demosthenes,  one  of  which  is  the  date  of  his 
birth.  The  author  has  there  examined  several  arguments  of 
Petitus,  Corsini,  F.  A.  Wolf,  and  other  critics,  but  seems 
not  to  have  been  acquainted  with  some  important  contribu- 
tions which  have  been  made  since  their  time  to  the  investi- 
gation of  the  subject,  bv  German  scholars,  and  particularly 
by  Boeckh.  As  the  question  involves  some  of  a  more  general 
nature,  which  are  interesting  to  all  students  of  Greek  an- 
tiquity, it  will  be  useful  to  consider  the  state  of  the  con- 
troversy by  the  light  that  has  been  thrown  upon  it  through 
the  researches  of  the  later  authors.  It  is  possible  indeed  that 
before  this  number  of  our  Journal  is  published,  Mr  Clinton 
may  have  conferred  another  benefit  upon  literature  by  a  new 
edition  of  his  work,  and  may  have  discussed  the  subject  in 
a  manner  that  would  render  the  following  remarks  superfluous. 
But  as  on  the  other  hand  it  is  not  impossible  that  they  may 
be  fortunate  enough  to  direct  his  attention  to  some  points 
which  he  would  not  otherwise  have  adverted  to,  it  seemed 
better  to  give  them  this  chance  of  becoming  useful,  than  to 
postpone  them  till  it  should  be  ceruin  that  they  had  not 
been  anticipated. 

We  will  first  briefly  mention  the  contradictory  statements 
of  the  ancients,  which  are  more  fully  reported  by  Mr  Clinton, 
and  will  then  examine  tlie  contending  opiuions  of  the  moderns. 
The  author  of  the  Lives  of  the  Ten  Orators,  which  have 
been  ascribed  to  Plutarch,  assigns  the  birth  of  Demosthenea 
to    the    archonship   of   Dexitheus :     iirra    kcu  TpiaKOvra  btij 

ov   tj   vap     OXvvB'mnf  rfK€   irpeafiela    trepl  Tjj^  ^tfBeia^.      He 


1 
I 


390  On  the  Birth-Year  of  Detuftathenes. 

also  mentions  thnt  it  was  in  the  year  nf  Titiiocratos 
Dcmostlienes  gained  his  cause  again.st  his  guardians :  cirt 
Tino<pa7ov%  et\e  tovv  eiriTjodirow.  "Between  Dexitheus 
(B.  C.  .*J8i),  and  Tiniocratcs  (B.  C.  .sS^-),  Mr  Clinton  ob- 
serves, are  twenty  archons.  Between  Dexitheus  and  Calli- 
machus  (B.  C.  3*|)  are  thirty-five  archons.  According  Xam 
this  chronology  then  Demosthenes  was  horn  B.  C.  385,  was 
in  his  twenty-second  year  when  he  prosecuted  his  guardians, 
and  in  his  thirty-seventli  at  the  time  of  the  Olynthian  war.' 

Dionysius  of  Halicariia^sus  dates  the  orator's  birth  fouD 
years  later,  in  the  archon»)tip  of  DL-niophilus,  01.  JW-  ■*■.  He 
says  (ad  Amm.  ■*■)  ovt<x  eyevv^Bi}  fiev  ewai/rtfJ  irpor^pov  Trjv 
e*raTO(TT^?  0\vfnrtabos\  apyovrtK  oe  TtfiOKpaToiK  els  erw  r/v 
efxf^efitjKw^  ewTaKaiceKaTov "  ti7}fio<riow  re  Xoyows  jy/wfar*- 
ypaKbttv  eiri  KaWtcTTpnTov  ap-^ovTo^y  e'lKotTTOv  Kal  wt>7rToi»'i 
cYtfi'  CTOT.  Mr  (riinton  observes,  thnt,  as  there  are  sixteen 
arclions  between  Dcmojihilus  and  Timocrates,  and  twenty- 
five  between  Demophilus  and  Callistratiis,  Demosthenes,  though 
he  might  be  said  to  be  seventeen  in  the  year  of  Tiiuocratea, 
couUl  not  be  called  twenty-five  in  the  year  of  Callislratus, 
and  he  therefore  proposes  to  correct  the  text  of  Dionysius, 
and  to  read  t'lKoaTov  xal  sktov  ey^tav  erw-  And  certainly 
if  by  the  words  as  we  now  read  them  Dionysius  meant,  that 
Demosthenes  only  completed  bis  twenty-fourth  year  in  the 
archonship  of  Callistratus,  we  must  either  adopt  Mr  Clinton's 
correction,  nr  charge  Dionysius  with  an  oversight ;  and  indeed 
he  repeats  the  exjiression  in  a  subsequent  passage  (c.  7): 
o  fiev  <«o<rToi^  Kai  TrefnrTOP  €T(k  ey^wv  rjp^oTO  -noXtTevtaOat 
Koi  ^TjMvyope'ti'.  At  all  events,  as  Mr  Clinton  observes, 
"  according  to  Dionysius,  Deuiostheues  was  bom  B.  C.  381, 
was  seventeen  at  the  prosecution  of  his  guardians,  twenty-six 
at  the  time  of  his  first  public  cause,  and  thirty-two  at  the 
period  of  the  Olynthian  war." 

A  third  account,  differing  by  a  year  from  that  of  l>iony- 
sius,  is  furnished  by  Aulus  GelUus,  who  (N.  A.  xv.  2S). 
describes  Demosthenes  as  twenty-seven  (septem  et  viginti 
annos  natus)  at  the  time  of  the  oration  against  Androtion, 
which,  as  well  as  that  against  Loptines,  Dionysius  (ad 
Amm.  4).  assigns  to  the  year  of  Callistratus:  and  Gellius 
adds  that    he  died   nl   the  age  of  sisty  :   (vixerunt   niter  tres 


k 


the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes,  301 


sexaginta  annos:  Deniosthcncs  scxagi'nta).  Since  Demosthenes 
\s  known  tu  have  died  in  the  archonship  of  Philucles,  if  the 
twenty-seven  and  the  sixty  years  were  complete  at  the  epoclis 
mentioned  by  Gellius,  he  wns  born  in  the  year  of  Evander, 
the  predecessor  of  Demophilus,  01.  99-  3.  This  statement, 
as  Mr  Clinton  remarks,  is  confirmed  by  Plutarch  (Demosth.  15), 
who,  after  speaking  of  the  oration  against  Androtion  and 
some  others,  adds,  that  Demosthenes  was  thought  to  have 
composed  them  at  .the  age  of  seven  or  eight  and  twenty 
i^voiv  17  Tpivjv  Ziovra  erfj  rptaKoi'Ta  yeyouta^)  :  and  by  Liba- 
nius,  who  relates  (Vit.  Demoslli.  §.  3)  that  there  were  sorae 
who  attributed  the  speeches  delivered  by  Demosthenes  in 
the  suit  with  his  guardians  (the  X0701  eTrirpoTriKol)  to  Iskus, 
because  they  did  not  believe  that  he  could  have  produced 
such  works  at  so  early  an  age :  cia  Trjv  tjXtKtav  toO  pt'iTopo^ 
UTTKTTWVTts;  {oKTtaKat^eKa  yap  €twi»  i)v  oTe  wpo^  TOVTOVi 
^ya>vil^€To). 

If  the  question  could  be  decided  by  evidence  of  this  kind, 
the  authority  of  Pseudo-Plutarch,  as  the  weakest,  would  lie 
forced  to  give  way,  and  Dionysius  would  be  outnumbered. 
If  however  he  alone  were  considered  equivalent  to  all  the 
rest,  Gellius  and  Libanius  would  apj>ear  to  have  come  nearest 
to  the  truth.  But  as  on  this  subject  such  testimony  cannot 
of  itiielf  determine  anything,  its  weight  must  wholly  depend 
on  its  consistency  with  the  information  which  Demosthenes 
himself  has  fortunately  afforded,  though  not  ao  distinct  and 
unequivocal  as  could  have  been  wished,  as  to  his  own  age. 
The  pasMgcs  containing  this  information  occur  partly  in  the 
orations  in  the  cause  of  the  guardians,  and  partly  in  lliat 
against  Midias.  Id  these  Mr  Clinton  finds  a  confirmation 
of  the  chroiiologv  of  Gelliu*  and  Libanius,  while  the  critics 
whom  he  endeavoured  to  refute,  as  well  as  others  whose 
arguments  seem  not  to  have  fallen  in  his  way  when  he  was 
writing  his  appendix,  appeal  to  the  same  passages  to  cor- 
roborate the  statement  of  Pseudo-Plutarch.  These  there- 
fore must  now  be  considered. 

Demosthenes  (in  Aphob.  i.  p.  81*)  states  that  his  father 

left  him  an  orphan,    seven   years  old  (tirr'  ctuJi*  ovrtt):    and 

he  repeatedly  mentions  ten  years   as  the  term  during  which 

his  guardians  had    the  management  of  his  estate.      He  also 

Vol..  II.  No.  5.  5D 


392 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


speaks  of  a  marriage  wMch  took,  place  in  the  lost  montli  of 
the  orchun   Pol}'2eUis,   ini mediately   after   which    he    was  ad-_ 
mitted  to  his  estate,  and  began  to   call  his  guardians  to  anfl 
account    (In    Oaelor.  i.   p.  868).    eyti/naro — cttI    rioXuf^Aou 
a/^yofToj  '2xipo(poptwviK    firjvosi    9  B'  awoKei'^t^  eypa<pri   Ho-- 
creiocoli/ov    f*i;w>r    etri    Tt/noKpaTov^j    ryttf    o    evQv^    fiera  TovtM 
ydfiov^  ooKifiaaOeli  ev^KuXovv  Kai  Xoyov^  airi^ovv    koi   Trav- 
TMi"    <iwoaTepov/j.€V(K    TTzv    oijca?    cXdy^avov    ciri    tov    avTou 
aptyovTW'     After   a   few   more  sentences   he   produces   some 
evidence  of  his   assertions,   and   then   proceeds :    fierd  roivw 
TWTov    TOV   apy^otrra    (Polyzelus)     Kr}<fH(y6oa)pos,    Xioip,    eirl 
TovTwv    eveKoXovf    doKtfia(j6ei9,    eXa^ov    ce     Ti^v    oiictjv    eiri 
TifAOKpaTous- 

Mr  Clinton  conceives  that  these  statements  of  Demos- 
thenes are  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  date  of  the  PseudosJj 
Plutarch,  and  thinks  that  Corsini,  who  defends  it,  has  for 
that  purpose  resorted  to  «?*  extraordinary  mode  of  computing; 
Corsinfs  words  are  (Fast.  Att.  P.  i.  Dissert,  xi.  §.  6.) :  De- 
niosthenis  ortus  ad  exeuntcm  Scirophorionem  Ol.  98.  2.  [June 
B.C.  38*]  rufcrri  debet;  ut  nimirum  Scirophorione  nicnsc 
01.  103.  2  [June  B.  C.  366]  octavum  decimum  a^tatis  annum 
absolverel-  Quod  si  Demosthenes  ipse  testatus  se  vivunte 
patre  scptennium,  docennium  vero  defuncto  patre  sub  tuto- 
ribus  cgisse,  observari  facile  poterit  tum  septem  tum  decern 
etiam  annos  illos  ita  completos  vol  integros  esse  potuisso, 
ut  ex  utris(|ue  una  conjuiictis  Integra  oetodccim  annuruni 
summa  conficeretur.  On  which  Mr  Clinton  remarks:  By 
whtit  powers  of  compntatiun  this  is  to  bfi  artstrnpHshed  it 
is  dijjlcult  to  itnn^ne.  But  the  dilliculty  wliich  Mr  Clinton 
finds  seems  to  lie  only  in  the  words  of  Corsini,  and  not  id 
their  meaning.  The  words  may  jjerhaps  be  construed  into 
the  jirupottitiuti  that  seven  and  ten  make  eighteen :  but  it  is 
manifest  that  what  Corsini  meant  was,  that  the  two  numbers 
used  by  the  orator  in  speaking  of  his  age  at  his  fathcr"'s  death, 
and  of  the  period  of  the  guardianship,  were  round  numbers, 
and  each  some  months  short  of  the  real  time,  and  that  the 
sum  of  these  fractions  might  have  amounted  to  a  whole  year: 
aiid  thus  interpreted  tlie  language  of  Demosthenes  is  cer- 
tainly consistent  with  the  statement  that  he  wa.s  born  in 
the  year  of   Dexitheus.      Neither  does  the  supposition  itself 


On  the  Birth' Year "^  of   Demosthenes. 

u|){>ear  1<»  be  at  all  absurd  or  extravagant.  A  later  writer 
(Schocruann  Uc  comitiis  AthenienMum)  likewise  adopts  it, 
thouf^h  lie  (Hoes  not  carry,  it  to  the  same  extent.  He  observes 
(p.  77) :  rutundus  nuweros  punit,  cum  hand  dubie  et  aliquot 
mensibus  major  fuerit  septenuio,  cum  patre  orbatus  est,  et 
sub  tutela  fuerit  itidem  mensibus  aliquot  diutius,  quam  de- 
cennittm.  But  the  real  nature  of  Corsini''s  argument  cannot 
be  understood  from  the  passages  quoted  by  Mr  Clinton,  and 
if  hift  reasoning  is  weak,  his  error  certainly  does  not  constat 
in  niiscalrulation.  His  object  is  to  prove  against  Sigonius, 
that  the  age  at  which  an  Athenian  citi/cn  became  nn  K])hebu3, 
and,  if  on  orphan,  was  admitted  into  possesfinn  of  his  estate, 
was  not  eiglitecn  but  nineteen,  and  that  the  previous  ex- 
amination and  enrolment  took  plac;e  on  the  completion,  nut 
in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  year.  His  argument,  if  I  am 
not  mistaken,  is  in  substance  this:  Demosthenes,  according 
to  his  own  account,  became  master  of  his  estate  in  the  last 
month  of  Polyzelus  :  this  must  have  happened  immediately 
after  he  had  attained  the  legal  age :  but  thia  could  not  be 
less  than  eighteen  complete,  because  he  himself  s|}eaks  of 
two  periods  of  seven  and  of  ten  years,  each  of  which  must 
be  taken  to  be  something  short  of  the  real  time,  which  he 
had  no  need  to  express  more  exactly :  he  was  therefore  born 
ID  the  lust  month  of  Dexitheus,  and  tlius  by  his  own  testimony 
confirms  the  date  given  by  the  Pseudo-Pbitarch. 

The  validity  of  this  argument  depends  en  the  truth  of 
the  assumptions  on  which  it  is  founded.  It  assumes  in  the 
first  place  that  the  two  whole  numbers  mentioned  by  De- 
mostheoefi  arc  each  less,  not  greater  than  the  real  time : 
secondly,  that  this  minority  ended  in  the  year  of  Polyzelus, 
and  thirdly  that  it  eiide<l  nn  soon  as  he  had  completed  liis 
eigliteentb  year.  Now  nil  these  are  certainly  questionable 
prDp<)siti<ms,  and  Mr  ('liiiton  denies  every  one  of  them. 

In  the  first  ]>lace  as  to  the  two  penixls  Mr  Clinton 
observes,  that  m  these  detnched  numbers  of  Demosthenes  we 
are  not  to  take  the  sum  of  the  twoy  or  to  suppose  seventeen 
tjears  complete:  but  he  admits  tliat  the  plirase  tirr  irwv  ovra 
is  ambiguous,  and  only  contends  that  the  hy|>othetical  case 
put  by  the  orator  (in  Aphob.  p.  833)  :  ci  KUTeAet^di;K  /tev 
cnai/aiof,    f^  6T1;    5f    irpoffCTpowevOttv,    does  not   neccssarihf 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  DemoittheneK. 

imply  that  the  seven  years  ttere  complete.  But  with  re- 
gard to  the  other  tcnUf  of  ten  years,  the  ambiguity  is  by 
no  means  so  potent,  and  in  fact  among  all  the  passages  in 
which  it  occurs,  there  is  only  one  where  the  expression 
ficcms  at  all  to  countenance  Mr  Clinton''s  conclusion,  that 
the  tenth  year  was  not  completed.  This  is  that  which  he 
cites  last  in  a  note  where  he  has  collected  most  of  them  ; 
thfV  are  the  last  words  of  the  Oration  ag.  Aphob.  i :  ''Atpojiotf 
^6  /ii/^'  ifv  eXaj^e  irpoiK  iOeXotrra  aTrooovrat,  koI  tovt  eret 
^cjrary-  On  the  other  hand  there  are  others  where  the 
completion  of  the  term  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  unequirocally 
cxprest:  as  in  the  phrase  ^eVa  ctwv  ^yevoMytovt  p.  SS3. 
and  still  more  strongly  in  the  question :  ov^  6\ok  erecrt 
trpoTef/ov  vcKO  rdwa  \a/5(0f  ti^ew  €Ketvo^  wv  tM><p\e  tijv  vuinv^ 
ij  KtjC€<TTriv  trot  yeyiaOat ;  which  alludes  to  the  marriage  con- 
tracted in  the  last  month  of  Polyzelus,  immediately  after 
which  Demosthenes  inforuis  us  that  lie  was  admittL-d  to  his 
estate ^  But  Mr  Clinton  contends  that  "in  the  state- 
meiit  of  the  ten  entire  years  of  guardianship  it  was  eu- 
dently  the  orator's  interest  and  purjwse  to  make  the 
most  of  the  amount  of  time.  The  whole  perio<l  of  guar- 
dianship was  no  more  than  ten  years :  and  at  the  time 
of  that  marriage  Demosthenes  was  yet  in  his  minority. 
Hence  it  is  manifest  that  the  space  expressed  by  o\a  ^Ka 
€T^  was  less  than  ten  years  complete."  This  argument 
docs  not  seem  to  me  convincing.  The  exact  time  was  un- 
doubtedly well  known,  and  appears  never  to  have  been 
n  subject  of  dispute  between  the  litigants.  Demosthenes 
mentions  it  as  the  basis  of  his  cAlcuIations  of  the  interest 
of  sums  due  to  him.  But  he  as  much  as  possible  avoids 
the  appearance  of  demanding  anything  more  than  is  due 
to  him  upon  the  most  moderate  computation :  he  is  con- 
tent witli  a  lower  rate  of  interest  on  his  mother's  portion 
than  the  law  allows  him  (in  Aphob.  T.  p.  8l,q)  :  he  is  ready 
flo  make  the  most  liberal  dechictirm  for  the  outlays  of  his 
guardians    (p.    825.    to    wepwv    toV    evTaKoata^    wpoar'Srifu 


<  Conlnl  by  b  un^lar  ovenlght  speaki  of  thU  mAniage  u  that  of  tfae  sbtcr  of 
PonoRthtnc*  ;  uid.  which  U  »li]l  raoie  rcoQArkabk,  lloeckh  {rcU-TtUe  Zciucrludu 
|iii>»e  Aa  Kcilr  Rog«n  Alcldiu.  p.  7^}  commits  llie  umc  mistake. 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 

oi/TOiSj  Kai  TovTtit  irXe/co  elfj-i  T^BetKUK, — eyto  C  vtrepliaXajv 
TOVTo  TTOttfaio  TpifXKovTa  ^vas,  tva  wpo^-  -ravTa  fti^d  avTei- 
ir€tv  e-^fOKTir).  It  seems  therefore  very  doubtful,  whether 
the  pleader  would  have  thought  it  exjiedient  to  name  a 
term  longer  thau  that  which  had  really  elapsett,  in  order  to 
found  upon  it  a  claim  of  more  than  was  due  to  him,  rather 
than  to  support  the  character  of  equity  and  moderation  which 
he  a^^umett,  by  confining  his  demand  somewhat  within  the  li- 
mits of  his  strict  right.  At  the  same  time  it  would  certaiiUy 
be  very  improbable  that  the  periml  of  his  wardship  should 
have  much  exceeded  the  time  he  mentions,  because  he  then 
would  not  have  failed  to  call  the  attention  of  the  judges  to 
BO  extraordinary  a  proof  of  forbearance.  Mr  Clinton  how- 
ever  upon  the  strength  of  this  argument  thinks  himself  at 
liberty  to  make  a  supjKisition  very  different  from  Corsini^ 
as  to  the  real  periods  signified  by  the  terms  of  seven  and 
ten  years.  He  assumes  that  Demosthenes  had  only  just  en- 
tered his  seventh  year  at  his  father^s  death,  and  that  the  ten 
following  years  of  his  minority  expired,  not  in  the  archon- 
tthip  of  PolyzeluB,  but  in  the  beginning  of  that  of  his  suc- 
cessor Ccphisodorus :  so  that  the  6\a  ^xa  trrj  were  strictly 
nine  years  and  ten  months,  and  he  was  bom  in  the  first 
month  of  Evander,  which  is  consistent  with  the  dates  of 
GelliuB  and  Libanius.  It  would  certainly  be  difficult  to 
shew,  that  Mr  Clinton  is  not  as  well  entitled  to  make  these 
assumptions  as  Corsini  tliose  which  he  has  adopted,  if  they 
are  to  be  tried  merely  by  the  language  of  Demosthenes : 
for  the  objections  we  have  suggested  as  to  the  term  of  ten 
years  may  perhaps  in  the  judgment  of  many  readers  seem 
to  be  of  no  force  at  all,  and  undoubtedly  are  not  decisive. 
With  regard  also  to  the  interpretation  of  the  words  from 
which  Corsini  inferred  that  Demosthenes  was  admitted  to  his 
estate  in  the  last  month  of  Polyzelus,  Mr  Clinton ''s  opinion 
will  probably  to  many  appear  preferable.  For  Corsini  has 
not  shewn  any  good  reason  for  limiting  the  time  signified  by 
the  phrase  ct^vv  M^ra  tovv  ydtAOvs  to  the  month  in  which 
tlie  marriage  took  place-  On  the  contrary  the  subsequent 
jMissage,  wliere,  after  naming  the  archons  who  followed  J*c>ly- 
xdufl,  the  orator  says :  iiri  tovtmv  evcKaXot/i^  coiri/taadeiv, 
has  been   thnnghl  by  other  writers    {m  by  Schuemann  in  the 


I 


On  tfie  Birtk-Year  of  Deniosthefie^. 

iiiHwetjuotptl  paHsage),  to  prove  that  his  minority  ended  in  the 
year  "f  C'ephiscidorns. 

On  the  IhinI  of  Corsinr«  assumptions,  that  the  period  of 
minority  lasted  exactly  eighteen  years,  it  was  needless  for 
Mr  Clinton  formally  to  express  his  dissent,  since  according 
to  his  own  calculation  the  length  of  that  period  was  no  more 
than  sixteen  years.  Hut  this  tlifference  of  two  years  with  regard 
to  so  remarkable  and  important  an  epoch  us  the  legal  nmturity 
of  the  Athenian  citizen,  while  it  places  the  controversy  itself 
in  its  most  interesting  point  of  view,  also  seems  to  present 
a  bL>tter  prospect  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory  decii^ion  between 
the  conflicting  dates,  than  lias  been  afforded  by  any  of  the 
arguments  we  have  hitherto  examined.  And  here  it  is  that 
Mr  Clinton,  while  he  has  successfully  combated  the  error  of 
Petitus,  who  maintained  that  the  legal  age  of  manliood  began 
at  Athens  in  the  citizen''s  twentieth  year,  and  while  he  no  less- 
jufttly  vindicates  the  character  of  Demosthenes  from  an  im- 
putation which  Mr  Milford  ha*l  too  hastily  brought  forward 
iirder  the  shelter  of  an  extraordinary  oversight,  seems  not 
sufficiently  to  have  noticed  the  difficulties  involved  in  his  own 
supposition.  These  difficulties  indec<l  are  not  (juite  so  great 
as  those  which  wuidd  arise  if  we  adopted  the  date  of  I-)iony- 
sius,  hut  as  this  date  is  not  very  wide  of  Mr  Chnton's,  both 
arc  liable.,  though  not  in  an  equal  degree,  to  the  same  objec- 
tion. Corsini  argues  against  that  of  Dionysius  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  Uem<)sthenes  came  of  age  in  the  year  of  I'olyzelus, 
wlien,  if  be  was  lH>rn  under  Demophilus,  lie  could  only  have 
been  in  his  lifteenth  year,  ijut  Mr  Ckiuton  bus  shown  that 
this  is  an  arbitrary  supposition,  and  that  if  Demustheiies  was 
admitted  to  his  estate  under  Cephisodorus,  he  might  conaia- 
tently  with  the  date  of  DionysiUH  have  entered  upon  his  six- 
teenth year  at  the  time,  that  is,  if  he  was  born  early  enough 
in  the  year  of  l}emo])hilus.  Still  even  this  is  an  earlier 
commencement  than  any  author  appears  ever  to  have  assignee! 
to  the  age  of  maturity:  for  Mr  CUnton  himself  interjireta 
the  wor<U  of  Didymus  in  Harpocratio  {int  ^Jtrev  rjfitjtrai, 
^tovfio^  (btjciV  avrl  tov  €av  eKKaidcKa  e-rwv  yevofi^vot)  to 
mean  tliat  minors  were  admitted  to  their  estates  in  their 
scventeentli  year.  Hut  we  should  certainly  nee^l  no  autho- 
rity'   to  convince   us   that   tlic   Athenian  law    could    not    have 


On  the  Sirtk'Year  of  Demoatftenes,  397 

licen  such  as  is  implied  by  llie  clirmioloffy  of  l)ionyRiu8,  even 
nccorditig  U>  Mr  C'lintun^s  coustructiuii.  The  case  of  DenioA- 
theiies  olune  would  be  suf^cient  to  shew  the  absurdity  of 
ima^inin^  that  a  boy  just  entering  into  hia  sixteenth  year 
could  have  been  expected  to  struggle  against  such  difficulties 
as  those  which  Demosthenes  represents  himself  to  have  en- 
countered in  asserting  his  rights.  But  we  may  also  ask 
whether  it  is  probable  that  a  boy  only  one  year  older  t^hould 
have  been  held  qualified  for  such  a  task,  and  should  for  this 
purpose  have  been  pronounced  a  man  (av^^i  e'wr*  ^oKt/iatr- 
Oeis).  For  at  ihis  age  it  was,  according  to  Mr  Clinton's 
calculation,  that  Demosthenes  began  to  call  his  guardians  to 
account,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  only  by  their  artifices  and 
evasions  that  he  was  so  long  prevented  from  bringing  them 
into  court.  He  might  have  done  so  as  soon  as  his  minority 
expired:  and  it  is  possible  that  he  might  then  have  Iwen  able 
to  plead  his  own  causi?:  but  it  is  difHcult  to  believe  that  the 
law,  which  supposed  tliat  every  Litigant  did  so',  should  have 
placed  a  boy  of  sixteen  in  a  situation  that  required  it. 

Tlie  question  then  is,  nl  what  age  the  young  Athenian 
underwent  that  examination  {SoKifma'ta)  after  which  he  was 
'  declared  a  man,  admittetl  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  estates,  if 
an  orphan,  and  subjected  to  all  the  dangers  and  ditftculties 
that  might  often  attend  the  vindication  of  his  rights.  This 
subject  was  discussed  by  Boeckh  in  one  of  his  Academi- 
cal Procemiay  publishetl  in  ISiy,  where  he  arrives  at  the 
conclusion,  that  this  event  happened  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  an  Athenian's  life.  His  reasoning  Is  founded  not  so 
much  on  a  comparison  of  the  express  testinumies  of  the 
ancients  on  the  ]ioint,  as  on  a  review  of  the  various  leading 
ejiochs  that  marked  the  citizen's  progress  toward  political 
maturity.  Passing  over  the  religious  rites  with  wtiich  he 
was  admitted  in  his  infancy  into  tlie  <ppaTpia  and  the  yevtK 
to  which  he  belonged,  we  Knd  that  at  about  fifteen  he  was 
subjected  to  an  examiuatiun,  probably  in  a  similar  assembly 
and  at  the  same  time  of  the  year,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining his  age.  This  appears  from  the  words  of  Aristotle 
quoted  by  the  scholiast  on  tlie   Wasps  57^:    A^Jia-T-oreXifs  o« 

*  Quinctilun  it.  i^  30. 


"         39a 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


d>i}<rtf  oTi  \l/rj^'>  o'l   eyypa<pofx€yot   OoKifia^ovrat  ot   veoiTepot^ 
ei  M^  CTwr  le  elev.      This  is  probably  the  same  occasion  on 
wliich   the  sacrifice  called  Kovpiov  was   offered  for   the  boys, 
and  that  called  ya/iti^ia  for  the  girls:  of  which  Pollux  says 
(viii.    107.) :    Kai    eis    tjXiKiay   irpocXBorTwy  ev    Trj   KaXovfAevtf 
Kovpettyr'iot    r}/i€p<f    i/ttcjo   ftev    twv  appevtav  to  Kovptov  eOvoF, 
mrep  oe   twc  0n\ntwv  ti/u  yanijXiay.      The  age  now  attained 
seems  to  hare  been  called  ij(ir},  and  lasted  two  years,  at  the 
end  of  which  the  youth  was  said  ewi^ierei  ^jBtjffat :   he  then 
underwent  a  second  examination,  but  in  a  different  assembly, 
that   of  his   cijfiiKj    which  gave  him    admission   to  his  estate, 
after  which  he  entered  upon  a  second  period,  that  of  ejfhebia. 
This  also  lasted    two  years;   and  at  its  close  he  was  entitletl 
to  take  part  in  the  popular  asnembly,  and  was  liable  to  mi- 
litary service  abroad.      At  one  of  these  epochs  it  is  certain 
that  his  name  and  age  were  recorded  in  a  register,  called  tlie 
Xrj^iap-^^tKov  yptiftfiaTeiov :    but   it   is   not   agreed    when    this 
was    done.      The    testimonies    of   the    grammarians    on    this 
subject  are   conflicting:    some   state  the   time  of  registration 
to   have  been   the  beginning,    others   the   termination  of  the 
ephebia.      But  there   are  two  passages  of  the  orators  them- 
selves, which  at  first  sight  appear  decisive  in  favour  of  the 
former  date.       Machines    (Timarch.   p.    14.  ."iH)  sayft :    evd^tf 
€f€ypa<Ptj    Tifxop^o^    eis     to    Xtj^iap-^^tKov    ypafxfAarefOv    xat 
Kvptm   iyevero  TtJK    oi/Vra? :    and    Lycurgus   seems    to    speak 
still  more  distinctly  to  the  same  elfcct,  when  he  reminds  his 
hearers  (Leocrat.  p.  157.):  vtttv  yap  ecTTiy  opKot,  oir  o/ivuovffi 
irai'Tes  01   -rroXiTai,  etr€tcav   civ   to  X>}^iapy^tKoi>   ypauftciTtiov 
eyypa(^fOfft    Kut  etptjfioi   yeroivrai.       The    (Kith    here  alluded 
to  is  that  which  was  taken  in  the  temple  of  Agraulus,  accord- 
ing to  one  grammarian  (Ulpian  ad  Demusth,  Fals.  Leg.  p.  264 
ed.  Par.)   at  the  beginning  of  the  ephebia,  according  to  an- 
other (Pollux  VIII.  105.)  at  its  close.     All  these  passages  are 
cited  by  Mr  Clinton.      It  is  manifest  that  if  the  expressions 
of  the  two  oralor.s  are  not  sufficient  to  determine  the  time  of 
this   registration,  nothing   con  be  proved    about  it  from  tlie 
grammarians  who  use  similar  language;   for  they  might  have 
founde<l  their  statements  on   these    very  passages  of  the  ora- 
tors.      It    therefore    adds    little    weight    to   this   side   of  the 
qiiealion  to  produce  teslimony  such  as  that  of  the  Scholiast 


On  the  Birth-Vfur  tif  Detnuufhenes. 

on  ^schincs,  quoted  by  Iloeckh,  who  remarks  (in  Ctesiph. 
p.  2.!;.M  Bekk.) :  iroXXaxis  cyww/ief,  ort  airo  oKTtvKaiceKa  etojv 
€ v€ypa(f>ovTo  6(?  TO  X^pajDvitoi'  o'l  AOtjvaiQi '.  and  again  (in 
Timarch.  p.  723  ileisk.)  :  eveyftatpofTo  5e  (etv  to  XtjJ^tap-^^iKov 
ypanftaretavy  ano  CTtov  irjy  xat  vvo  eTij  ei\'  Toth  €<prjpot/K 
ereXovv.  It  is  of  more  iiiiportonce  to  inquire  on  wJiat 
grounds  Mr  Clinton  rejects  the  conclusion  which  others  have 
drawn  from  tlie  language  of  the  orators.  His  reasons  are 
contained  in  the  notes  to  p.  350  and  35'i.  He  contends  tlmt 
the  words  both  of  Lycurgus  and  jEschiues  are  used  in  a 
lax  and  general  sense,  and  are  not  intended  to  convey  a  pre- 
cise definition  :  and  he  produces  two  arguments  in  support 
of  this  assertion.  One  is,  that  the  term  X»;fia/j;^«oi'  ypan~ 
/loreToi'  is  derived,  not  as  has  been  generally  supposed  from 
T-o  Tojv  Xn^eoiv  ap^eiVf  because  those  who  were  registered  in 
it  became  masters  of  their  estates,  but,  according  to  an  ety- 
mology given  in  Pliotius  and  Suiilas,  from  tj  \»;fis  twi/  dpym; 
because  it  contained  the  names  'AOrjyaiuJV  twv  i~)(0VTwv  ^XiKiaif 
apyetv.  Tile  second  argument  assumes  the  correctness  of 
the  author''^  inference  from  the  language  of  DemoRthcncs,  and 
that  of  a  general  proposition  which  he  has  founded  upon  it : 
that  minors  were  admitted  to  their  estates  at  sixteen,  and 
the  ephebi  called  to  military  service  at  home  at  eighteen. 
Hence  he  says :  it  is  evident  from  Demosthenes,  mfto  emerged 
from  his  minority  in  his  seventeenth  year^  that  the  register 
of  tfie  name  in  the  Xtj^tap^uiov  yp.  was  nvt  the  period  for 
the  admission  of  t/te  ward  to  t/te  estate.  But  as  this  latter 
argument  would  fall  to  the  ground,  if  Demosthenes  was  in 
his  eighteenth  year  at  the  time  mentioned,  and  as  this  is  one 
of  the  points  in  dispute,  wc  cannot  use  this  supposition  in 
order  to  con.strue  the  expressions  of  /Eschincs  and  Lycurgus 
in  a  sense  which  is  not  certainly  the  plain  and  natural  one. 
But  the  argument  drawn  from  the  object  of  the  lexiarcliicK 
register,  and  the  meaning  of  the  term,  deserves  to  lie  at- 
tentively examined.  Mr  Clinton  objects  to  the  derivation 
which  connects  it  with  X^ft$  in  the  sense  of  KXrjpo^  and 
oiffjiay  because  this  meaning  would  only  refer  to  the  cose 
of  orphans,  whereas  every  mole  Athenian  of  the  age  of  twenty 
(according  to  the  supposition  he  adopts)  whether  in  the  life- 
time of  the  father  or  otherwise  was  inscribed  in  that  register. 
Vol..  II.  No.  5.  .-jK 


400 


Oti  the  Birtk-Vear  of  Demosthenes. 


lint  it  seems  tlie  less  |>nssiMe  to  \a\  any  stress  upon  tliifi 
objectiuii,  liet'nii.se  even  if  twenty  was  tlie  age  of  registration, 
it  is  extremely  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  wlietlier  aii  Athe- 
nian was  at  that  age  capable  of  holding  any  office :  and  on 
the  other  haiul  tl»e  register  might  very  well  be  named  from 
the  must  important  qualification  it  bestowed,  tliough  all  who 
were  inscribed  in  it  c-uidd  not  immediately  reap  any  beneBt 
from  it.  The  question  however  does  not  depend  npon  a  dis- 
putable etymology  :  there  is  another  ground  on  which  it  seems 
clear  that  the  registration  took  plaee  not  in  the  twentieth 
year,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  ephebia,  and  at  the  same 
time  with  the  ^ncifAatrta  by  which  the  citizen  became  ca- 
pable of  sticcceding  to  an  estate.  In  the  same  passage  of 
I'ollux  (vim.  103)  to  which  Mr  Clinton  appeals  as  an  au- 
thority to  prove  that  the  registration  took  place  in  the  twen- 
tieth yviis^  h  is  mentioned  that  at  the  Kanie  period  the  cpliebi 
took  tfie  ci'lebruted  oath  in  the  Bancttiiiry  of  Agraulus,  by  which 
they  lx)und  tlieinselves  not  to  disgrace  their  nrins*  not  to 
desert  their  comrades  and  tlieir  |M)st,  to  tight  even  single- 
handtn]  fur  their  altiirs  ami  heartii.s  ticc.  {e'lKoaT^t  eveypdtpovro 
Tip  \ti^uip-^tK^  ypa/tfiaTeitttf  kw  Mfivuov  iv  AypavXovj  Oi/ 
Kitraia-^^i/vui  tu  6ir\a  k.  t.  \.)  In  this  point  therefore  Pol- 
lux agrees  with  Lycurgus  in  the  passage  (juoted  above,  and 
the  only  question  is,  when  this  oath  was  taken :  when  this 
is  deterinincLl,  we  have  also  ascertained  the  time  of  the  regis- 
tration. Now  as  to  the  epoch  of  the  oath,  it  seems  scarcely 
possible  to  doubt,  wbeii  we  consider  (he  time  at  which  the 
military  service  of  the  Athenian  citizen  began,  All  authors 
agree  that  he  spent  two  years,  the  period  of  his  ephebia* 
under  arms,  though  in  home-service,  traversing  the  country, 
garrisoning  the  forts,  and  performing  any  other  duties  that 
might  be  imposed  on  him  fur  the  protection  of  Attica.  So 
PoUux  in  the  last  quoted  passage:  vcpiwoXoi  etprifim  xejH- 
f\ecav  Tijv  ^lofjav  <pv\aTTovT€<;  wffirf^  tjoti  weXcTwirrc?  to 
(TT^aTiwTiKa  Ka't  eJs  f^ey  tovv  e0f;/3ow  e'ttrrjeoeuf  oKTUiKuiceKa 
€Ttj  yevdfievot,  ovo  oe  «i?  ireptTroXow  t/pSfiouvro,  Aristotle, 
quoted  by  HarjHK'rntio  (TrepiVoXoi)-.  gives  a  fidler  descrijitioii 
of  the  same  thing:  'ApiffToreXt}^  iv  'A&tjva'mv  -rroXiTettf  irtpt 
TitJtf  e(ptj(iwv  XeytDi'  (prjaif  olrm'  Toy  Bevrepov  evtavrov  e«c*rXl^• 
aiaf  €1'   T^    OeaTptft   yfvofiei'ijVj    anroot^afiefoi   Tifi  o»j*i«    trept 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


401 


Tas  Taf f K  ■',  Kat  Xa^ovres  aawica  Kai  Sof>v  rrupa  tou  oiiftou, 
TreptiroXnvui  Tt)v  -^topav,  koi  ctaTp[j.iovaiv  tv  to7v  (pvXuKTti- 
pioi9.  We  shall  by  and  by  notice  a  difficulty  wliich  this 
passage  raises :  at  present  we  need  only  observe  the  inference 
which  it  seems  irresistibly  to  force  upon  us.  Can  it  be  ima- 
gined that,  if  11  service  was  to  he  performed  sucli  as  Pollux 
and  Aristotle  describe,  and  if  an  oath  was  also  to  be  taken 
such  ns  the  former  re|>ort!>,  the  oath  was  taken  at  the  end 
of  this  service,  and  not  at  the  beginning  uf  it?  Hud  not 
the  young  soldier  frequent  opportunities  in  the  course  of 
this  period,  either  of  nobly  using,  or  of  disgracing  the  arms 
entrusted  to  him  ?  At  what  juncture  could  the  oath  be  ex- 
pected to  make  so  strong  an  im]>resbion  on  his  mind  as  at 
the  outset  of  Iiis  career !  Or  rat]ur  how  preposterous  wouUI 
it  have  been  to  jjass  over  this  occasion,  when  militory  duties 
were  to  be  actually  performed,  and  to  reserve  the  oath  for 
another,  when  there  was  only  an  indefinite  and  uncertain 
prospect  of  them  I  For  though  it  could  only  be  through  some 
extraordinary  accident  that  the  youth  was  exempted  from 
the  duties  of  a  Tre/utVoAot,  many  years  might  elapse  l>efore 
he  was  called  upon  for  foreign  service.  Tliis  argument  gains 
additional  force  when  we  combine  it  with  the  fact,  that  the 
military  age  is  spoken  of  as  one  undivided  period,  beginning 
at  the  eighteenth,  and  ending  with  the  sixtieth  year  of  life. 
(Harpocr.  ' EtrtuvvMOt.)  Hence  Aristotle  quoted  by  Photius 
(iTTpaTia  ev  to7v  eTrwyv/xmi :  from  his  AOtivataiv  TroXiTcm), 
to  explain  rtj  t/f  i;  ey  rots  €■T^wvu^0K  iTTpaTta'  e'ttriv  yap^ 
<ptj<iif,  eirwvvuoif  Sexa  fteu  o't  twv  ^i/Xtui',  ovo  ce  Kat  Teaaa- 
paxovTa  oi  twv  r}\i\iiav'  o\  o  e<btj^oi  e'yyp(i<bone¥Oi  irpoTepov 
fiev  6«  \e\euKaauefa  ypaufiaT^ta  eveypatbovro'  Kat  ewcy- 
fja<f>ovTo  auToii  6  re  ap-j(wv  e(f>'  ov  cwfypatptjtrait't  kui  cttw- 
vvfio^  o  Tip  trpoTipti,*  eirtdf-itiutiKta^'  vi'V  oe  fi'y  ttjv  pov\ti¥ 
avaypa<povT(u.  These  archons,  whose  names  marked  the  ages 
of  all  the  citizens  liable  to  military  service,  were  called  enio- 
vvfiot  Twv  >/XiKta)f ;  they  were  also  called  eTrtvyvtiot  twk 
X;ff ewv ' :    which    seems    very    decisively   to    prove    that    the 


'  7'hcic  words  are  perlupii  corrupt.  Itoeckh  omits  theni,  u  t^ruu  eatsa.  And 
wanting  in  SumI&a  anil  PhoCiu*.  PUin'r  (Hcitr.  p.  l/K)  intcrpreU  ibetn  <' havrng 
receivetl  unler»  Croiii  the  |>cu|ilc  as  to  ihc  ihmiiii  they  were  to  octu^y." 

'  I  am  obliged  to  Ic&vc  thi«  fiiACTiioti  rnUitR  on  ihc  au:hoht;  of  Boeckh,  who  tnftk» 


403 


0«  the  Birth-Year  of  DemoniheneB. 


anonymous  author  in  Photius  was  mistaken  about  the  origin 
of  the  word  Xii^iapyucov :  though  when  he  adjs  ef  tKeiviov  tw¥ 
ypafxfiaTeiwv  KXrjpovcri  Tat  apya^f  he  may  be  speaking  either 
from  good  information  as  to  one  of  the  uses  of  the  register, 
or  from  a  conjecture  founded  on  his  erroneous  etymology. 

We  have  observed  that  the  difference  between  Mr  Clin- 
ton'n  account  of  the  age  of  Demosthenes  at  the  time  of  his 
admi2>saon  to  his  estate  and  Corsini''s,  amounts  to  exactly  two 
years.  This  arises  from  a  supposition  which  both  of  them 
liave  tacitly  assumed  as  one  of  the  bases  of  their  calculation  : 
that  the  ward  was  admitted  as  sotm  as  he  had  attained  the 
legal  age,  according  to  Corsini,  eighteen,  according  to  Mr 
Clinton,  sixteen  years  complete.  But  this  supposition  is  so 
far  from  being  certain,  that,  although  |)erliaps  it  cannot  be 
proved  to  be  erroneous,  it  seems  to  be  the  least  probable  of 
tliose  which  have  been  made  on  the  subject.  For  it  may 
certainly  be  imagined,  witli  at  least  equal  shew  of  reason, 
that,  as  the  examination  which  determined  the  age  of  puberty 
took  place  on  a  certain  dav  of  the  year  for  all,  so  that  which 
marked  the  commencement  of  the  next  biennial  period,  the 
e]>hcbia,  took  place  once  for  all  at  a  stated  time  in  the  year. 
l)(K*ckh  conceives  that  this  was  the  fact,  and  he  endeavours 
to  ascertain  the  time.  He  observes  that  in  two  cases  of  adop- 
tion (Deniosth.  in  Leochar.  p.  1092.  12.  Isaeus  de  Apollod. 
hcred.  p.  17**)  the  registration  in  the  Xrj^tap-j^tKov  ypatifxareiov 
is  said  to  have  taken  place  at  the  a'/a^^ai/jetriat.  If  we  might 
draw  any  inference  from  these  cases  as  to  the  general  rule, 
and  if  wc  nn'glit  also  su]>pose  that  the  elections  took  place 
at  the  end  of  the  year,  we  sliould  certainly  have  in  these 
casual  notices  an  undesigned  coincidence  with  the  statement 
of  Demosthenes  taken  in  the  strictest  sense,  which  would 
imply  that  he  was  admitted  in  the  last  month  of  Polyzelus. 
But  it  must  be  allowed  that  too  many  of  the  elements  in 
this  calculation  arc  unknown  or  uncertain,  to  permit  us  to 
consider  it  as  anything  more  than  a  conjecture,  though  the 
general  fact  that  the  admission  took  place  at  a  certain  day 
in  the  year  may  still  appear  the  most  probable.  Indeed  it 
is  so  far  from  clear  that  cases  of  a<loption  wai'rant  any  con- 

iiwtthouluiy  reference:  and  to  it  is  rcpau«d  by  rUiner  (p.  J7U):  1  have  not  yet  been 
■ble  to  Riul  nn  exomple. 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthettes, 


408 


clusioa  as  to  the  ordinary  time  of  registration}  that  we  might 
draw  a  contrary  inference  from  a  fact  mentioned  in  the  same 
oration  of  Isorus  (p.  65)  where  we  find  that  the  adopted  son 
yf-BS  introduced  to  the  assembly  of  the  yew^rat  and  ^pdropts 
and  enrolled  in  their  rcrrister  (the  Koivov  ypa\itJ.areiov)9  not 
at  the  Apatnria  in  the  fourth  month  (see  above,  p.  .S*)")  but 
at  the  Thargclia  in  the  eleventh,  which  appears  from  the 
orator's  words  to  liave  been  the  stated  time  (eirei5;J  Qap*y^\ia 
rjv,  Tj'yci'yc  fxe  tnt  tov^  /Sw/uifv  etc  Towy  yevv^ra^  re  icai  ^/jn- 
TO/wa?).  Meursius  (Gra'cia  Feriata,  p.  I4«)  remarked  this 
distinction  between  natural  and  adopted  children,  wbicli  how- 
ever may  have  arisen  from  principles  not  applicable  to  any 
business  transacted  in  the  purely  political  assemblies  of  the 
demes. 

As  the  military  oath  of  the  ephebi  was  taken  in  the  sanc- 
tuary of  Agraulus  so  the  occasion  was,  it  may  be  presomed, 
nn  other  than  the  festival  of  the  Agraulia,  which  honoureil 
the  memory  uf  the  daughter  of  CccropR*.  By  a  comparisrjn 
of  this  festival  with  the  Cyprian  Agraulia,  Corsini  has  shown 
that  it  was  most  probably  celebrated  in  Boedromion  (F.  A.  T. 
II.  p.  297).  If  therefore  the  enrolment  in  the  Itxiarchic  regi- 
ster was  made  in  Scirophorion,  it  preceded  the  oath  by  more 
than  two  months.  A  seeming  difficulty  however  arises  from 
tlie  well  known  passage  of  /Esehines,  in  which  he  speaks  of 
the  ancient  custom  of  arming  the  orphan  sons  of  citizens  who 
had  fallen  in  war  at  the  public  exjK'nse,  and  of  making  a 
solemn  proclamation  uf  the  honour  conferred  on  tliem,  in  the 
theatre  at  the  Great  Dionysia;  while  the  language  of  Aristotle, 
above  quoted  from  Har|X)cratio  {nepiiro\ot)y  may  seem  to 
imply  that  this  was  also  the  practice  in  alt  cases.  It  is  how- 
ever most  probable  that  either,  as  Boeckh  suggests,  Aristotle 
himself  described  that  as  the  ordinary  usage,  which  was  really 
conlinetl  to  a  particular  case,  or,  which  seems  more  likely, 
that  Harpocratio  guve  ttx>  large  a  meaning  to  his  words. 
The  words  however  raise  another  <|uestion  which  end)arrassed 
Harpocratio  himself;  he  observes  that  in  the  expression  rov 


I 


'  Ikwckh  addti -'ephctxts  BC8C  patHsdcvovinc,  rjuemftdmodum  i])M  mm  AiOBtiliifi 
vMm  iIcToTcrat."  I  have  not  been  iiWc  lo  find  ihc  IcRcrnl  here  alliulcil  w,  which  l* 
renaiiily  not  the  poiiimon  one-  Was  the  author  thiiilciiiR  of  the  claugh(er  of  Kirch- 
lllCUf  ? 


Me   Birth-Year  of  Demmlhenes. 

^vTCfjov  evtavTovy  Aristotle  contradicts  j'Eschincs,  who,  »]>eak- 
ing  of  his  own  education,  mentions  that  he  had  himself  served 
two  years  as  irepiwoXo^  Ttff  ytvpa^  (Fals.  Leg.  p.  .'iO)  whcreaa 
according  to  Aristotle  this  dutv  only  began  in  the  second  year 
of  the  cphcbia.  The  lexicographer  suggests  that  the  orator 
may  have  exaggerated  his  own  merits,  by  boasting  that  he 
had  voluntarily  spent  two  years  in  the  service  for  which  only 
one  was  required  by  law.  This  explanation,  absurd  enough 
in  itself,  appears  to  be  founded  on  a  misunderstanding  of 
Aristnlle"'a  meaning ;  for  the  second  year  of  which  he  spoke 
was  probably  calculated  not  from  the  final  probation  but 
from  the  age  of  puberty,  and  the  examination  at  the  festival 
of  Cureotis,  by  which  this  was  legally  determined.  If  this 
took  place  in  the  boy's  sixteenth  year,  the  oath  taken  in 
Boedrontion  would  fall  in  the  second  year,  a  few  months  after 
the  registration  in  the  lexiarehic  lKM>ks,  and  at  the  time  when 
according  to  all  accounts  the  service  of  the  wep'tTrokni  began. 
But  according  to  this  construction  of  Aristotle's  words 
it  would  appear  that  he  made  the  ephebia  to  begin  from  the 
age  (»f  puberty.  This  appearance  may  indeed  be  deceptive, 
and  may  be  merely  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  his  ex- 
pressions have  been  reported.  But  there  seem  to  be  other 
indications  that  the  terms  epftehus  and  ephehin  were  used  in 
two  senses,  a  larger  and  a  narrower  one,  the  one  referring  to 
the  time  of  life,  the  period  of  adolescence  following  that  of 
boyhood,  which  began  in  the  sixteenth  year  from  the  A|>a- 
turia :  the  other  to  the  legal  maturity  which  qualified  ibe 
citizen  to  become  master  of  his  estate,  and  which  began  in 
the  eighteenth  year,  and  perhaps  in  a  certain  month:  the  last, 
if  Boeckh  is  right  in  his  conjecture,  of  tlie  civil  year.  It  is 
in  the  latter  sense  that  the  term  is  used  by  Ulpian  (on  De- 
niosth.  ircpt  n.  p.  n?  Wolf.)  when  he  says:  oi  e^tovTei  Ci« 
Tot)v  f<pi}liovi  SK  iraicwv  fjtsTa  vavoTrXitj^v  tofjifvot*  VTrepfiayeiif 
u-^pt  Qnvdrov-  But  it  is  probably  in  the  former  that  we 
ought  to  understand  it  in  an  interesting  passage  of  the  So- 
cratic  dialogue  Axinchus,  where  the  author  after  mentioning 
the  various  kinds  of  tvrnnny  t<t  which  ihe  boy  U  subject  in 
the  course  of  his  e<lucalion  from  a  nmltitiide  of  masters, 
proceeds:  eizctdav  ^  els  tows  etpij^ov^-  iyypnt^iiy  Kotr/ntirtji 
nal  <po(io%  ■^f'tftwVf  eirfiTa  AifxeTov  Kcti  'Aitaet/fiiu   Kui  yvfivaat* 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 

npXia  nai  paf^cot  Kal  KoxtZv  uueTpiat'  Knl  Tras  o  tou  fieipa' 
KtOKov  y^povas  ioTiv  vwu  trwippuvtaTus  koi  r^v  ctti  tov^  veou^ 
€upetTtv  Ttjv  e^  'Apelov  Trayov  f^ovXifv.  Boeckh  in<lee(l  applies 
tliia  description  to  the  later,  legal  cpliebia',  supposing  cy~ 
ypadiii  to  allude  to  the  Xri^tap-^Mov  ypafifxaretov,  which  he 
thinks  is  confirmed  by  the  numerous  Attie  inseriptions  of 
the  gymnastic  class  (see  his  f'orpiis  Inscr.  P.  ii.  CI.  v.  n-  2(5.5) 
containing  lists  of  cphcin  with  the  names  of  their  denies 
annexed.  But  Phitner  (Beitrnegc  zur  Kenntniss  des  Atti»- 
chen  Uechts)  objects,  that  it  is  scarcely  crcdihlu  that  youths 
who  wore  already  entrusted  with  the  use  uf  arms,  witli  the 
defense  of  tlieir  country,  and  the  nianaj^eiiient  of  their 
estates,  who  might  be  fathers  of  families,  shoiUd  have  been 
still  subject  to  such  a  rigorous  and  degrading  discipline,  which 
ia  siniilarly  describfd  by  Teles  in  Stobwus  (Flor.  T.  98.  7S)  : 
e0i;/3o?  yiyovtv  efAiroiKkV  tov  KotTtJu^Ttiv  ^^clraif  Toy  'rraioo- 
Tpi^i)V^  TOW  oTrXoMoX"**'  "^^^  yufivnffiap-y^ov,  YwtJ  •jravTwu 
TOUTUtv  ficuTTtyovrait  irapaTtjptiTai^  Tpa^t^Xi^erm.  This  au- 
thor indeed  adds :  «f  e<p^fiwv  cfrrl  kuI  tier]  ^iKoai  ctwi',  fti 
rf>o/^jTat,  nat  vapaTijpei  xai  yvfivatrinp-^v  koI  arpaTtjyov^ 
But,  as  Boeckh  obaervew,  Teles,  who  apjiears  to  have  drawn 
his  description  from  the  Axiochiis.  is  of  no  greater  autliority 
aa  to  the  time  than  Uarpocratio  or  Suidas  :  so  that  perhaps 
it  ie  not  necessary,  in  order  to  save  his  credit,  to  read  with 
Valckentcr  Ta^tap\oi/  for  yvfivaaiap'^ov.  The  context  of  the 
{Hissage  in  the  Axiochus  seems  strongly  to  confirm  Platncr''s 
opinion:  for  the  author,  in  describing  the  miseries  to  be  en- 
countered in  the  next  stage  of  life,  uses  expressions  which 
may  be  very  aptly  referred  to  the  new  condition  of  the  young 
man  who  at  the  end  of  his  gymnastic  education  was  ad- 
mitted to  bis  estate,  and  within  a  few  months  afterward  sent 

*  He  obttervcR  (commcnl.  1.  dc  ephcbia):  cphebi  conditio  (rd  i'ittit'ufeu)  duo 
mnxime  munera  coniplexa  nt,  (cfiiinanUirutii  liib»reni  ex  militiie  ruiiinicnu:  ct  In 
pjnnnuiis  qtiidem  paniere  f^ynimularchU,  Mplimnistis,  cnsnictiB,  anticmmctis,  f^nt. 
nutis,  uve  pedotribui,  loii  KrettLnio^ii^uonm) :  anil  hence  he  ■«  inclined  (tKoiif!h 
Tcre»«*s  imperfect  acquaintance  with  Athenian  usit^c«  reiiilen  it  unsaTe  to  attacli  any 
ilcfiaite  value  lo  his  expreuicmM  on  the»c  Kubjects)  to  explain  AhiIt.  i.  I.  24  is  post- 
quam  exccMit  ex  ephchi*,  LiberiuH  virendi  ftiit  potestu :  n*ni  antes  Qui  scire  posan 
aut  initeniiim  noscerc  Dun)  vtaa  metus  niaj^ier  prohlb«bant.  In  the  Kunuch,  a« 
Boeckh  ohi(CT\'c«,  then  is  a  maniresi  confusion  of  idnw,  or  want  of  informAtlMi :  ihrr«. 
V.  I.  R,  Chzica  In  described  as  cfthrhn^ :  iv.  4.  2Ji  nnnos  uatui  $tdceim :  yet  lie  is 
(it.  3.  Sll)  fUMtoM  ptthlict  in  Pirvus. 


I 


406 


On  the   Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


out  upon  military  duty  into  the  country  :  e-rrei^u  2e  atroKuBtt 
Toi/Ttovy  <ppotrr't^t'i  avTtKpvf  vTreOwra*'  «ai  cioXoytCfJiOtj  Ttva 
Tis  Tov  ^ijv  ooov  ^vuTtjveTat'  Kai  Toii  vcxTepov  j^oXeirot?  etpdvtj 
TO  irpwTa  T-at^ia,  irai  vrjiritov  ais  ftXrj9w%'  €f>o^rfTpa'  trrpaTeiat 
yap  Kat  TpavfiQTu  koI  uvi/e^eh  dyaive^.  As  to  the  inscrip- 
tions P]atner  observes  that  the  addition  of  the  deme  is  not 
cflnclusive,  since  it  might  have  been  annexed  by  way  of  distinc- 
tion before  the  names  were  inscribed  in  tlie  renter.  Pt-rhaps 
it  nriay  also  be  worth  remarking  that  Attic  inscriptions  of 
the  Roman  period  can  hardly  he  considered  as  good  authority 
on  this  question.  For  it  seems  by  no  means  improbable  that 
after  Attica  lost  its  independence,  the  institution  of  the  irepi- 
TFoXoi  became  obsolete.  The  gymnastic  exercises  may  then 
have  been  prolonged  so  as  to  fill  up  the  period  once  occu- 
pied with  nnlitary  service:  but  it  docs  not  follow  tliat  the 
ephebi  were,  throughmit  the  whole  of  it,  subject  to  the  kind 
of  discipUnc  described  in  the  Axiochus. 

The  mistake  of  the  grammarians  who  held  that  the  lexi- 
archie  registration  ttmk  place  in  the  twentietli  year,  admits 
of  a  very  natural  explanation.  It  is  probable  that  tliey  con- 
founded the  Xrj^tup-xiKa  ypttfXfiaTtla  with  the  -jrlvaKes  skkXtj' 
ataaTtKoi,  whicli  contained  the  names  of  the  citizens  who 
were  of  age  to  take  a  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the  popular 
assembly.  That  this  right  commenced  only  with  the  expi- 
ration of  the  two  years  of  home  service,  and  not  with  the 
preceding  registration,  is  in  itself  liighly  probable,  and  is 
almost  demonstrated  by  a  passage  of  Philustratus  quoted  by 
IWckh  (Vit.  Sop!i.  11.  I.  5,  of  Heroiles  Atticiis)  :  nereKotr- 
ftj}^€  ce  Kul  Toys  ' A9t)vaiov^  «^ri/3ous  fK  to  vvv  cr^i;/xa,  yXofxv- 
oas  TTptaTov  afttpieffa^  XevKciv  Tews  yap  c^  /aeXairat  (-vrjufjxvot 
Tav  eKKXrjtriav  TrepieKaBrfvTo  kuI  Tas  TroMircis  eirefiwov.  Sucli 
Keems  to  have  been  the  shadow  tliat  then  survived  of  the  old 
institution  :  but  wc  may  collect  from  it,  that  the  ifepifroXoi 
had  no  vote  in  the  popular  assemblies. 

It  appears  then  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  imputing 
to  jEscbines,  Lyciirgus,  and   Hyi>eride8",  a  laxity  of  expres- 

'  Hatpocnt.  ('Bm^tmlc  •i^'^a'at)  'YirtpUttf  iv  t*^  "Tfiiii  Xdptrra  iwiTpowui^' 
hrttiii  3i  iyeypdifniv  iyto,  koI  o  vnftot  d-woiffictce  Tiiw  Kaftiot'tv  tmv  AaTaXet^9ivTte»  t$ 
fitiTfi*  •  >  puMuge  whirli  «o«n»  clnirly  Id  refine  the  docmiie  whieh  llie  1<exicographcr 
tncani  to  prove  by  ii. 


On  the  Birth  Year  of  Demosthenet. 


407 


sinti  which  would  be  scarcely  consistent  with  common  faense, 
and  which  can  never  safely  be  presumed  even  in  un  orator, 
unless  some  motive  for  it  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  cause  he 
is  pleading;  that  on  the  contrary  the  moat  inconvenient  con- 
sequeuecs  would  result  from  such  nn  interpretation,  and  that 
it  is  therefore  by  their  expressions,  taken  in  their  natural 
sensuf  that  we  ought  to  construe  the  meaning  of  Demosthenes, 
and  to  correct  the  statements  of  the  grammarians.  It  fol- 
lows that  Demosthenes  was  born  cither  in  tlic  archonship  of 
Dexitheus,  or  in  tlie  early  part  of  the  following;  year. 

We  must  not  however  conceal  u  new  objection  arising  out 
of  a  mark  of  time  first  noticed  by  Boeckh,  in  a  Memoir  on 
the  chronology  of  the  oration  against  Midias  in  the  Berlin 
Transactions  of  1818,  where  the  same  sagacity  which  de- 
tected tlie  difficulty  is  employed  in  removing  it.  Demos- 
thenes mentions  (in  Aphob-  i.  p.  8I7)  that  his  father  was  no 
sooner  dead  than  his  guardian  Aphobus  proceeded  to  take 
possession  of  the  house,  and  to  raise  the  portion  which  he 
was  to  have  with  the  widow.  Tliis  it  is  said  he  did  when 
on  the  point  of  sailing  as  a  trierarch  to  Corcyra  (eTreioi}  cl;(cv, 
eic^Xcfv  fieWwif  €K  KepKvpav  Tpirtpap^^tK.)  The  question 
is,  to  what  expedition  this  trierarchy  relates.  There  are  two 
which  fall  in  the  childhood  of  Demosthenes,  and  it  must  have 
been  to  one  of  them  that  he  alludes.  The  first  is  that  in 
which  Timotheus  reduced  Corcyra  under  Athenian  domi- 
nion, which  Diodorus  (xv.  36)  places  in  Ol.  101.  I.  The 
second  commanded  by  Iphicrates  is  related  by  Diodorus 
under  01.  101.  .S,  which  is  confirmed  by  Demosth.  in  Timoth. 
p.  llSiii  where  the  archonship  of  Socratides  is  mentioned  as 
the  date  of  the  expedition :  and  this  is  consistent  with  the 
account  which  fixes  the  birth  of  Demosthenes  in  01.  99-  *• 
The  time  of  the  first  expedition  on  the  other  hand  will  not 
conform  to  the  chronology  for  which  Boeckh  contends,  if  it 
be  placed  in  the  spring  of  01.  10] .  l.,  which  is  the  date  that 
Dodwell  assigns  to  it.  If  however  we  suppose  that  Diodorus, 
as  ia  not  unusual  with  him,  comprehended  an  event  which 
belonged  to  the  latter  end  of  01.  100.  4,  within  the  following 
Olympic  year,  and  that  the  father  of  Demosthenes  died  in 
the  winter  or  early  in  the  spring  of  01.  JOG.  4,  we  may  still 
retain  the  archonship  of  Dexitheu^  a.^  the  date  of  the  orator^s 
Vol..  II.  No.  .->.  .IF 


I 


408 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


birth,  who  would  then  have  been  7-J-  or  7|-  at  his  father's 
death;  and  this  date  for  the  first  expedition  is  more  conform- 
able with  Xenophon*'B  narrative,  which  connects  the  conquest 
of  Corcyra  with  the  attempt  of  Sphodrias  on  the  Piraeus, 
which  was  made  in  01.  100.  3,  though  Oiodorus  relates  it 
also  under  01.  100.  +.  So  far  perhaps  this  fvolution  of  the 
difficulty  may  appear  satisfactory :  but  the  author  has  not 
been  equally  successful  with  regard  to  another  date,  which 
stands  in  the  way  of  the  foregoing  calculation,  that  of  the 
battle  of  Naxos.  He  has  seen  the  necessity  of  placing  tliis 
event  also  a  year  earlier  than  the  lime  which  Dodwell  assigns 
to  it,  Boedromion  of  Ol.  101.  I:  for  it  happened  in  the 
autumn  preceding  the  expedition  to  Corcyra.  But  he  has 
Dot  explained  how  his  own  date,  01.  100.  4,  is  to  be  reconciled 
with  XenophoM''s  narrative  (Hell.  ▼.  4.  30),  which,  as  Mr 
Clinton  observes  (F.  A.  p.  lOC),  clearly  implies  that  the  bat- 
tle was  fought  in  the  autunm  following  the  spring  in  which 
Cleombrotus  was  frustrated  in  his  attempt  to  invade  Bceotia 
(Ol.  nx».  »).  The  allusion  to  Corcyra  therefore  still  requires 
some  further  explanation  to  reconcile  it  with  Boeckh's  opinion, 
and  if  referred  to  the  Hrst  ex|>edition  must  at  prefeent  be  con- 
sidered as  a  confirmation  of  Mr  (Uinton's. 

If  however  the  argumentH  derived  from  the  Atheniait 
institutions  have  any  weight,  they  cannot  be  overthrown  by 
a  single  obscure  allusion  which  appears  to  contradict  them : 
and  we  may  therefore  still  with  unabated  confidence  proceed 
to  examine,  whether  the  account  which  Demosthenes  gives 
o{  his  own  age  in  the  oration  against  Midioa,  can  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  conclusion  to  which  they  have  led  us.  The 
orator  there  says  (p.  5^)y  that  he  is  thirty-two  years  old : 
^vo  Koi  TptUKOtnra  cTtj  yeyovu.  According  to  Dionysius  He 
wrote  these  words  in  the  year  of  Callimachus  Ol.  107.  4-,  which 
is  conformable  to  the  date  Ol.  99.  4,  for  the  orator's  birth,  or 
rather  is  evidently  the  ground  of  it.  Wolf  (Prolcg.  ad  I.ept. 
p.  cviii),  though  lie  differs  from  Dionysius  by  four  years 
as  to  the  orator's  birth,  and  Mr  Clinton,  adopt  the  same  date 
for  the  oration,  and  on  the  same  ground  t  that  it  contains 
allusions  to  an  event  which  occurred  in  the  archonship  of 
CalliniaehuK,  the  Olynthian  war.  Both  suppose  the  orator, 
in  describing  his  age,  to  speak  as  if  the  facts  of  the  case  were 


On  the  Birth-Year  of  Demosthenes- 


409 


rewnt,  though  according  to  AVolf  they  really  happened  four 
years  befure,  whereas  Mr  Clinton  diinks  it  may  be  proved 
that  two  years  only  liad  elapsed  between  the  cuniniiasion  of 
the  offence  complained  of  tii  the  speech  and  its  composition, 
and  accordingly  that  Demostfienes  was  thirty-two  (tliat  is  in 
his  tliirty-second  year)  in  the  archoiiship  of  Thessalus,  01. 
107.  2,  which  agrees  with  the  date  of  GelTius  and  Libanius  for 
his  birth. 

The  6rBt  point  to  be  ascertained  is,  at  what  time  the 
facts  which  are  the  subject  of  the  oration  occurred,  the  next, 
when  it  was  composed  and  to  which  date  the  orator'^s  account 
of  his  age  is  to  be  referred.  Beside  the  allusion  to  an  expe- 
dition to  Olynthui),  the  oration  mentions  one  to  Eubiea,  the 
events  of  which  are  of  some  celebrity,  though  its  precise  date 
has  been  hitherto  a  subject  of  dispute.  It  was  that  in  which 
Phocion  commanded,  and  defeated  the  tyrant  Plutarchus  at 
Tamynne,  and  it  occurred  at  the  same  time  with  the  occasion 
of  the  prosecution  of  Midias  (p.  067).  The  critics  who  pre- 
cede<l  Mr  Clinton,  including  Bocckh,  had  fixed  their  atten> 
tion  on  a  passage  of  Dionysius,  in  which  it  was  evident  that 
he  had  spoken  of  this  engagement,  and  had  mentioned  its 
date,  but  that  his  words  had  been  mutilated  by  his  tran- 
scribers. In  this  passage  (Dinarch.  p.  565),  according  to 
the  corrupt  reading,  he  is  made  to  ground  an  argument 
concerning  the  date  of  an  oration  (Demotith.  -trpo^  lioitorov 
trf fil  Tov  6t^tiaTo<i)  on  an  athiston  contained  in  it  to  a  recent 
expedition  ei$  Ili/Xa^,  and  to  state  that  this  cxpe<litioD  took 
place  eirl  Bov/tt^Sov  ap-^ovro^.  The  oration  itself  (p.  999) 
left  no  doubt  that  for  Hi/Xas  we  ought  to  read  'Vati-vvat^  and 
this  correction  had  been  proposed  by  Corsini.  But  aa  to  the 
name  of  the  archon,  Demosthenes  gives  no  light,  and  Corsini 
thought  himself  at  liberty  to  conjecture  Beo^iXoi^,  which 
would  bring  the  action  down  to  01.  lOf).  l.  Wolf  and  Boeckh 
also  adopted  this  conjecture:  while  Weiske  (De  Hyperbole 
errorum  in  Hi»toria  Philippi  A.  F.  commissorum  genitrice 
III.  p.  37)  proposes  to  read  Ki^ifMov.  and  to  date  the  action 
01.  ]06.  -1.  But  alt  these  learned  writers  overlooked  another 
pasiiage  of  Dionysius,  in  which  he  records  the  date  of  the 
oration  •Kepi  tov  oi^o^tm,  and  consequently  of  the  expedition 
to   Tamynrc   (p.  H,')f>.   n  'yrip   ^itfioff$evi}v\    wept   toiI  ofOfAwroi 


410 


On  the  Birtk-Year  of  Demosthenes. 


Xcyo?  Kara  QeercaXov  ij  ATToWoitoypov  ap^ovTa  TeTeX«rTat.) 
This  was  first  piiiiited  (lut  by  Mr  Clinton,  and  it  overthrows 
a  hypothesis  which  Roeckh  had  made  very  plausible:  that 
DionvKiuii  had  deduced  bis  date  for  the  action  at  Tamyn*c 
from  that  which  he  too  hastily  adopted  for  the  oration  against 
Midias.  It  is  now  clear  that  he  founded  it  on  some  other 
groundi  which  may  "liave  been  a  good  authority  :  and  there- 
fore wc  are  bound  to  admit  it  until  some  reason  can  be  shown 
for  rejecting  it. 

A  great  part  of  Boeckh's  arguments  arc  intended  to 
prove,  that  the  expedition  to  Olyntbus  alluded  to  in  the  orat. 
ag.  Midias  (p.  566,  578),  cannot  have  taken  place  in  the  cele- 
brated Olynthian  war  which  began  in  the  archonship  of  Calli- 
machus,  though  it  was  probably  on  the  contrary  opinion  that 
Dionysius  built  his  chronology  with  regard  to  Demosthenes. 
He  observes  that  the  orator  Bpcaks  of  this  expedition  (p.  566) 
as  having  preceded  the  campaign  in  Eubrca  during  which  be 
suffered  the  outrage  from  Midias:  and  even  if  it  could  be 
supposed  that,  while  writing  as  if  the  occasion  of  the  speech 
was  recent,  he  had  introduced  allusions  to  events  of  a  subse- 
quent period,  he  could  not  have  represented  these  as  occurring 
before  the  epoch  at  which  he  feigne<l  himself  speaking.  Our 
want  of  information  about  the  expedition  really  mentioned 
cannot  weaken  this  conclusion.  Doth  the  Bubcean  and  the 
Olynthian  expeditions  must  have  occurred  at  or  before  a  time 
of  which  the  orator  coidd  say,  that  he  was  then  either  io  hia 
thirty-second  or  his  thirty-third  year.  This  argument  how- 
ever only  proves  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing 
that  the  speech  was  not  comjmsed  before  Ol.  107.  + :  it  does 
not  affect  Mr  Clinton's  proposition,  that  the  facts  which 
occasioned  the  prosecution  took  place  in  Ol.  107.  S. 
But  in  hia  Public  Economy  of  Athens  (ti.  p.  109)  Boeckh 
had  already  brought  forward  another  argument,  which, 
though  it  applies  with  greater  force  to  the  chronolog)*  of 
Dionysius,  must  be  considered  iis  a  very  powerful  objection 
to  Mr  Clinton's.  Demosthenes  relates  (Mid.  p.  S40)  that 
while  his  cause  with  his  guardians  was  pending  (/ueXXoutrui* 
€t<ri€VQi  T&ti'  ctKwv  ciC  t/fiepav  wairepei  TFTapTtjv  tj  irefiTrrfiv — 
therefore  in  the  year  of  Timocrates),  he  received  an  insult 
from    Midias,    for    which    he   afterwards    brought    an    action 


On  the  Birih-Vear  of  DemoBihettea. 


411 


against  him  {^Utj  KaKrfyopiat).  In  this  action  the  defendant 
suffered  judgement  to  go  against  him  by  default  {Sitctiy  toutm 
TiO^wv  varepov  rijs  KaKyjyopia^  (TKov  eptjfitiv  ov  yap  airtjin-a-) 
The  plaintiff  then  proceeded  to  bring  another  action  upon 
the  judgement  {Sucrjv  ej^ov\rj^}i  but  he  complains  that,  up 
to  the  time  at  whicli  he  is  speakiug,  he  had  been  prevented 
by  his  adversary's  chicanery  from  bringing  this  cause  into 
court,  and  he  brings  witnesses  to  prove  that  he  bad  l)eeii  thus 
put  off  for  eight  years  {otoanev  ^tjnoaBevrj  Koiciv  \c\oyyoTa 
iAeiOKf.  €^ov\y^  KoX  tfCrj  tij  Kpitret  eKetvTj  oiayeyovora  €TTf 
oKTw).  If  Dionysius  had  been  right  in  hts  calculation,  it 
would  have  followt-d  that  the  second  action  was  brought  Ol. 
105.  4.  But  after  making  every  reasonable  allowance  for 
I^al  delays,  it  seems  utterly  impossible  to  account  for  the 
interval  which  would  on  this  supposition  have  intervened 
between  the  decision  of  the  first  cause  and  the  institution 
of  the  second.  This  difficulty  is  not  indeed  so  great  on  Mr 
CUnton''8  computation,  which  makes  the  interval  two  years 
shorter :  but  still  there  remains  enough  to  throw  great  doubt 
on  the  date  he  adopts  for  the  engagement  of  Tamynse,  even 
setting  all  other  considerations  aside. 

Such  then  appears  to  be  the  present  state  of  this  some- 
what intricate  question.  We  cannot  conclude  this  review 
of  its  history  without  expressing  a  hope,  that  the  English 
and  the  German  author,  to  whose  industry  and  sagacity  we 
are  chiefly  indebted  for  the  light  that  has  been  hitherto 
thrown  upon  it,  may  investigate  it  still  further,  and  that 
their  combined  researches  may  finally  bring  it  to  a  solution, 
which  will  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  many  interesting  sub. 
jects  which,  wc  have  seen,  are  so  intimately  connected  with 
it. 

C.  T. 


1 


JECDOTA    BAHOCCIANA. 


The  following  inedited  fragment  occurs  in  the  Baroo- 
cian  MS.  76.  fol.  302.  It  appears  to  he  a  truncated  portion 
of  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  Book 
of  some  large  grammatical  work,  not  improbahly  the  treatise 
of  Hcrodian  irep!  ^XtVews  ovofxaTajv,  the  first  Book  of  which 
is  cited  by  Steph.  Byz.  under  the  word  hplyef,-  There  are 
other  excerpta  from  the  same  Grammarian  in  the  MS.  from 
which 'the  fragment  is  taken,  and  the  internal  evidence  it  affords 
seems  to  favour  the  supposition  that  he  is  likewise  the  author 
of  it. 

Xffrovfxev  Kai  Ti/f  tov  ''Aprj^-,  Apeo^  yeyiKtjv  irw^  eupiffat 
CIO  ct(i>9oyyov  Xeyonev  ApevoVy   Aptvt\ 

fxt^av  oe  dWfjKotaiv    Apcva^. 

If    KXlJTtKt) 

''Ap€V    Ct'     6     <PofioS    OWKT^p* 

Koi  aTTOptjKaat  Tcpl  T^ft  KXiaewi  woBet'  npa  tj  ci<p9oyyoi'  to 

yap  «?  et^F  irap'  avrolt  to(9  'lunrt  cia    tou  rj'    icai   Totavrtjv 

XtrtTtv    eirivoovfiipv    to    aKoXovOov     Aptio^'   e0o«    A'loXevo't   tov 

wXeovaLetv    dtutvijEvros    eiridiepofiei'ov    r)    tov    p'    vaos    vavov' 
*  •?.»».  '  '\  .     -f  "f  .      •       ' 

aos   avoi      eaXtoK^v    evaKwKcy     appTjKTov  avpptiKTuv      tppayrt 

eppavyt}'     ecoiKav    ovv    koi    eiri    tov     Aprj^-    tov    irXfOvaafiov 

ToiJ    v'    etxa  cyei'cxo    Aptjvo<i    rj   yei'iKti'   koI    tvpiCKeTUt    »/    tjv 

oiipSoyyoi'  uvrrj  ce   e'cfTi    fcaxot^wi/ov'    Kttt    iv    xXiaei     pt^ixa- 


'  MS.  afitfit. 

>  Bekker  Aoccd.  Or.  Ind.  v.  'A^wc  from  Ctucroboic.  ad  Theodoi.  tii^wrrwt  iiXXit> 

XoiiTiv'Apci'a. 

'  This  «l]«u1d  probably  be  'A«>«u  it'  u  t^tifiut  iaU-njft.  ^ach.  S.  e.  Theb.  dlR 
Xmicrrip  ydot.  [t  itaicritp  id  right  h  m*y  bc  trtstle  from  ^idywut  "  to  break  throa^** 
but  tlic  wcinl  \\»%  no  auihoriljr  10  Eiipport  jt  ibftt  1  ntn  aware  of.  The  t|uoutkm  is 
(lerliBpi  from  an  Ode  of  Alciru^.  In  OrcK-  t'tMi.  p.  (113.  The  >Rnlic  vocative "Apift 
ia  aaid  to  bc'A^cf  which  tbrm  occum  frctiucntlj  in  llnrnvT.  Kiiiitat]iiii<i  adduces  the 
autb«iilT  of  Jlcrodian  iii  repaid  to  the  .Eolic  deilcnuon  of  tliii^  mnm. 


Antcdota  Baroeciana.  413 

riKfj  $eXei  opaoBai'  r/i/Ae»  ttai  ^v-^€i  Kai  rtuoa'  Kai  irfpt 
Ttjv  apyr^v  deX^i  ayaTperreuOat'  wcrir^p  yap  to  ypavi 
Tpowfjv  vaQov  Tov  a  eif  ii  yeyove  ypudi  'iva  titj  yev*}Tat 
aKaTaX\tj\(Ki  TpoiriKw^  ctTfp€0rj  Kat  yptju^  eyevero'  kuI  ctti 
eTTipprjuaTtitv'  ovk  €(Tti  oe  Kai  €<p  exaTepas  Xe'fcws  Kai  e^ 
cKeiviov  KaTaXa/jL^dfOH'  rat'  etrriv  f\vre*  aXX  "Iva  fir)  yev^rai 
7j  ctaip€<TK  t}t/T€y  yiverat  rj  TpoTrrj  fivrc*  Ofnoiuts  ovv  koI  evi 
Tov  Ap€vo9'  o  TrXeovaafxos  yup  €iroti}<re  tij*'  ci<pdoyyov* 
evOavru  ouv  Tpoxt]  "iva  awocTrj  t)  ttaKO<ptiiVia  ti/s  ottpOoy- 
70W. 

ItTTeov  OTt  TOW  Zijv,  '/.tjvo^  e<f>vXQ^av  o'l  vaXaioi  "'livt-es 
Ttjv  KXlatv  oiov 

ewei  ^  ^"^X^  Zijyo;   uyj/tjpefpt^^  Sofxouriv  ''Aptj^* 
fi€Tay€ve(rTepot     AioXtTs    eTpey^/av    7Mvaf    kui    "Zav'     Kat    cti 
/iera'yfi'eo'Tfpoi   at    Itupc;  eta  tow   Zav*   Ttp  AvKavi^' 
KXvOi  juoi   Zai/05   Tc  Kovptj  Zav   T     EXci^e^ie* 

TlaXiif'  atropov  ttwk  "Trap  \wtTi  to  d  ciy  »;  Tcx^aTrrai  to 
•yap  eravTiop  to  a  eh  ^  Tpevoutrt  to  7javn%  Zijcov  eipi/KOO't' 
Aeyto  ti)  oTt  OVK  erpey^av  aXX  ffUfitj{ravTO  fieTayevttTTepow 
AtoXeiv. 

UoOev  TO  Tvoii  Kat  ^aatXij  Trap'  'Oft^PT'*  <fiafiev  oTi 
Trapd  Aujpievaiv  earTlv  ij  xXiat^  xni  yovv  virdp^ei  f-iactXiji, 
ptttTiXtja  atTtaTUit)  Kai  Karti  (TuvaXatfbi^v  fiaaiXTi'  w^trep 
K  tj<pea,  Ktj^^'  ot  fievTot  BoiuToi  iid  tov  7  KXivovai  olo¥ 
putTiXiov  Kai  Ota  t^s  ei  ct(f>96yyov,  ^aeriXeZ,  orai*  ydp  tou 
patTt\t09  *tf  Toil  paatXeos'  TpoTrrj'  to  yap  v  to  irapa  TOiv 
AwptevtTiv  eiy  ttjI'  ei  ditb^oyyov  TptwovcTiv-  Aci  ce  yttwtr- 
K€tv  OTt  avraXeitpovatv  ot  AttikoI  twi'  els  ok  yeviKmy  irrw- 
aeiov  TO  €<v  ci?  w'  otov  iLperpteofj  ^pCTpttos'  Xleipateo^, 
Yletpatioi'  Kttt  TovTO  woiovaiv  owoTav  KaOaptevrj'  orav  de 
fxtf  KaOaptevrj,  tw  e  irapaXiiyeTof  oiotf  aXiea,  aXiiJ*  cficXea, 
ei/icXe^"  ofjLolws  Kat  dXteta^,  dXtm'  to  dc  ov'iKWf  «y  t^i*  oi 
ci<p9oyyov  (TvvaXti<f>otMnv'  oJov  oXieoif.  aXtoiv'  roXXaKii 
cc    Kat  €iri  ycvtKi)\    irXt/BwrtKioy,     O'l    oe    Acupiewi'i    Awptaivt 

*  Thu  khoiUd  be  either  u<j^it/>f0(ot  or  i^itptift4tti  i6fio». 

■  This  writer  is  probkbljF  the  »ame  u  Lj'cdod  or  Lycon  of  Tiou  ■  Petlpetetie 
philmophcr  whn  HcHimhcd  under  the  kinKii  of  Pergainutii  Diog.  Liert.  t.  (W.  lie  la 
mentioDed  bj  I'lutaxcti  in  the  opening  af  his  treatise  lie  Atid.  Poet.  Bckkcr  Anccd. 
tir.  Ind.  T.' AXa«.  Fkbr.  Dibl.  Or.  t,  n.  p.  304. 

*  MS.  icovpt\^tm\ru$9pliii. 


414 


Jnecdota  Barocciana, 


tiai  etTTiv  i;  fieu  cl?  to  ij  auvaKoi<p^  Awptewv   r/  o€  eiv  to   d 
'AttikiJ. 

\<rTeoy  oTt  e-j(ou€V  Ttva  cis  cj'  Xtjyovra  ovonaTa'  X^yu 
oe  TO  wmv  icai  to  oafs  0tj\vKo»  xat  to  ffToTs  ovovTepov'  oirfp 
^aly  ovofia  ev  trvvBetrei  koivov  ti  yiveTai  aptreviKOV  Kai  OtfXv- 
Kov  otov  onooai^'  TO  fxevTot  (Ttoi^  evpjjTcu  wapa  F.i/Kopioi'* 
Kai  'HpoSoTtp'  Kttt  Toura  (Aev  eii  aPs  X^ov<ti  fiovov  Trap  tf- 
fuy*  itapa.  de  'AioXevtri  iroXXa,  olov  iifXat^,  Boats,  'Op€<TTai<i' 
To  fxevToi  irais  oia  tov  a  XeyfTai  (xovov  -rraiS  wsp  ev  avva- 
Xot<hii  irais'  e^ofiev  oe  Kat  ^apaKT^pa  eU  i^  olov  irotrK'  xdcK' 
o<pt£'  €-)(ts'  TovTo  6e  fiovov  TO  TTaiff  ei?  Tofv  et'v  al?  Treptffma' 
fAevov  eaTiv'  e«  tou  iraip  papvvofievov  cvsfaXotd>€i''  to  yap 
oaii  o^vTovoy  c<tt*,  K\tv€Tai  oe  eta  tov  t,  daiy,  oacTO?  ettti 
itapcucetTai  avT^  to  Sairtj'  effyrjfxaTKrrat  Be  trapa  to  ^tta 
o  <T*jna'ivet  TO  nepti^Wyt  oBev  kqi  cairpov  o  oiafAepi^iov'  Kat 
caifjitov'  evOev  to  ^'  fio'ipa^  caitrafxevot'^^  o  fieXXuiv  avrov, 
caiffu  Kat  oa'tcrofiai,  airo  yovv  to  oa'un  cai<ra  to  ptjuaTtKov 
ovofta  Kai  ataa  tj  fiCftcpiCTfievn  exacTtft'  xal  yap  ttoipa  irapd 
TO  fteueptcrOai  y^yove  de  awo  tou  daiut  caiy,  Kai  trvvaXotditi 
oa}^  o^yToreiTai  Kai  errl  otto  o^utovow'  fcrenf  o^vtoj'j;^^;  irpo^ 
€T€pov  fftifxatvofievov'  eaTi  yap  oaif  TrepiffirwfAevov  ewt  t^ 
fia-^tji'  £y0cv  a'lTtaTixt} 

eh  oaiv  onrXtfT/jLevuiv  "iinrwv  a^'yoy"', 
e^ei  KaXXifiayi<K'  koi  tovto  c€  citto  tov  ^aiia  tov  (rrjfiaivovTOi 
TO  fiepi^u),  OTt  fiefitpicTTai  Trapa.  TOty  TToXXoiy  t]  euw^ta' 
etSey  Kai  *'  ooito?  eiarj^  :^  To  yovv  trToTs  tTirai/iov  ex  tih/ 
tTTeas,  i7ra9'  Kai  fiera  Tot/  7  OTal^'  to  i)dTj  Tfios'  kuI  ffTtaf,  tXTe- 
QTot"  Trt  yap  TOV  ay  tivderepa  ^la  rod  t  KXivcTat'  Kepa^,  kc- 
paToi'  Trepan  vepaTO^'  eWa  yevo/ieyov  otos  Kai  crracs  oid  tov  t 
-TraXti'  KXi9ri(T€Tat'  Ta  yap  t^  ^eToyrit  tov  cttqi'Tos  irapeiT- 
•^tjfiaTierfieva  ovdeTepa    ovoeTTOTe    loiqi   KXtffet    KeypfiTai   aXKa. 


'  r.  (U  att. 

■  We  ihoold  remd  EiroXiit.  Etfm.  M.  p.  433,  48.  uc  mp'  EZiroX*  r.  Einr^Ut.  «1 
^if  K6pit  iivtrtie  Ti)  irraU  rffflrot.  Thwgnost.  Cfld.  Itarocc  ftO.  C^n.  fWft.  dale  li^vro- 
kxirat  t*i»if%  I>i|\i>ki)ji-  ral  -rii  «miT»,  -wtpivwaTai.  ftapm^  ovirrtpov  fi^XoT  ii  ^P  \v- 

»  See  the  Etjrm.  M.  t.  v.  Ualt  Salt. 
*«  ThU  fr«groent  U  differently  quoted  by  the  Vrnctiim  Scholiiw  II.  S.  387.     He 
readk  cJv  ^aiV  o-irXdr^K^v  'imrtiov  Ke  Bishop  Blcuofield *ii  Oltlmtchua  Tng.  470. 


Anecdota  Barocciana.  415 

rtj   Tov   apaewtKov   •  ei'Oev  av  ti?  aoi    wpoTeiwiv*^    ovot' 

repof  irapeayrifxaruitievov  t»;m  KKiatv  tov  apaeiiKou  eVi- 
^tjTJitroit'  Kat  TOVTo  naXtaTa  eir^p^arov  erJ  Ttav  tif4<pt(i6\iov' 
Xcyc*  Tis  ffoi  kXiuov  to  TrXctor*  u*J  'irpo'n-erwt  K\'tvtK'  a\\ 
efcTcwoi'  Troioc  to  vapaKei.uevov'  to  TrXeto^  rj  to  v\€iu)v' 
oc«  yop  trpurrov  to  aptjeytxov  k\i6^  Kat  to  ovccTepov  xat 
&ij\vKOf'  iijXov  oTi  ei  fiev  otto  tov  TrXeloy,  TrXcioy  «ai  'TtXcToi'' 
ci  d  airo  TOV  TrXeituv  irXtioros-  sai  to  'ttXciov  tov  ttXc'iovo^ 
etTTOi'  ovTttK  Of  ETTi  'jra»'Twv  fA€fivTf(T9at  Twv  afxtpoTepwv 
wpo^  TO  irXQvtjaat  erepnv  rj  irpo^  to  htj  TrXavrjvjjvat  ofiotatt 
Kat  €iri  fieToywv  Ta  ovoeTepa  Tt}v  Ttav  (tpaeviKtuv  xXitriv  te- 
yovTOi'  TO  fievTot  vav  etrt  fxovov  tou  Beov  Vlavov  XeyeTOi 
KOI  KXiveTai'  €7rt  iie  tov  ouoeT€pov  iravros'  cttci  koi  ttq?* 
wcunros*  cttcj  iav  trot  TrpoTeivt}  Tts  to  ira^  KXivat'  vvBov  ei 
fiew  TO  Kotpov'  ei  oe  Trap'  AioXevtrt  xarros*  ul  yap  A'loXeU 
Xeyovai    xas  iraTs  o  X^/oof   **  tva  tauyfiev  oti  irarra"— 

*  *  *  aXX'  Tf   Sta    TOV  e   rj  ^la    tov  d'  olou    Zloirei^etvv    Kat 

no<Teicawv    ovk    apa    trepKT-rrdTat     ■         ■  irdXtv    tmv    e'ti 

w  weptffirwfievMv  ^6-^povov  tj  i;  /(X»/Ti»fiy  t*]  et/^ei^'  o  Hcto- 
<hu}u  tit  Aevoipwv'  o  Kt^^cti^wi',  w  Kn/at^wv*  tov  IXoaet- 
ufl'ovoy  ce  oyy  ij  avTif  rj  KXrfTtKfj,  o  Yloaeictov  yap  kui  w 
Vlooeicov  Sta  tou  u  fxtxpov'  umttc  ov  vepiairatnevmf  Kat 
iraXw  Ta  eW  tov  •jrepiavutfieva^  ovdevoTe  to  w  ft;  d  Tpeirtt 
vapa  AioX€v<Ti'  TO  Se  Xloacidm'  eyev€TO  Flofffcoai',  ovk  apa 
ireptrTtrut\Ltvov  toov  ovk  kotu  ec;  toottouv  Kat  Kavova^  cetKvvTai 
TO  \\a<T€ti^wv  fti/  TrepiaTttonevov  Xeym  fli;  m-jto  Xtjyuvatji'  mro 
^fX/ffCft*?'  QTTO  wa^Xj^'youVi;?' airo  aVnKOTT^s'  a7ro«X»^Tt»c^v'  airo 
ctatpeaewv  Kat  airo  ciaXeKTou'  ti  fitj  Triptairtvfi^vov  vfiXuvoTi 
o^VTOvoVf  Kat  yap  ely  dwv  iroXXa  o^vrova'  KaXvotov^"'  Mvpiu~ 
odii'*  TO  eh  o*w'  Xiyyocra  o^vTova  dta  Toy  o  (tXiycTai*  ei  ce 
Kat  TOV  ^  TOVTQ  ofittjvvfiei,  iroXv/jieidatVf  iroXvtieiowyoi'  ocwv^ 
oc9aivDS'*  ft  -jraXtv  ovv^^  a^vTovov  to  Yloctiitov  tcei  cia  Toti 
o  KXiveaOai'  ov  KXiverai  ()«,  ovk  apa  o^vtovov'  €<ptj/ixev 
oe  ev  T(o  KavvH  ort  ei  ce  Tt  o*a  tou  oj  tovto  ofitovvfiu 
eta  Tot)  Eiowff  E(dwiro$  to  ewi  tov  ifpiiMKt  *^o*  KaXvctDV, 
Afivotap'    Tt    ovv    e-yofiev    e'nreiv   wept    tow    Woaetctav<K\  eiri- 

"  t.  itiiortitioi  OT  supply  rx"»». 

•*  M8.  KuA.vi^w.  "  M8.  flxcf  aiw. 

Vol   II.  No.  5.  3  G 


I 


416  Jnecdota  Baroceiana, 

off*^0ijTa)  irepunrwfievov  koi  oetyB^aeTttt  Ta  evavTtovMtfa' 
cei  ovv  ^fxav  yv^fat  irptorov  tiiv  crv^oXo^lay'  eri/^Ao^ci- 
Tfli  ^e  TrapoL  to  ^€<o'  n  toi  to  «VtS^juaa)'  ^  otto  to(/  evtfcw. 
nXaro*!'  iiiv  o  <piX6<Tod>os  tfyei  toi  airo  tov  o€<rfiett}  tov^ 
n6dav  ciiro  ttj^  BaXadatfSy  atptKiifievoi  yup  fee*  ovk  cti  ou- 
WLficBa  fia^^^^e^l>'  e'ltrl  5e  oi  vapa  Ttjv  iroctv  fj.^  dioov^'  iva  airo 
Tou  iroTifiov  i;  ervfioKoyla'  eiowfjiev  ovv  \otwov  to  tijs  ipuyvrj^' 
vapa  to  o€q>  Wocetietj^'  tovto  o€  c^ci  j^ijo-ety  ToXXas  Tapa 
TOis  TTtMijTaty  e*f  toC  auroD  noceidciTs,  Iloo'fiocftH'  /fa*  Floaei- 
oe'aiiwf'  oi/rof  xct^*  ''Ioktii'  KaTa  <Tvva\oi<^i}V  Wo<t€wUwv'  Kat 
MK  Tou  YYoaeiteMv  fiev  Yloacitwif*  eK  tov  Xlotreideotwoi  o« 
l\oiT€t6uivo^'  CK  xawTijy  Ttjv  cvvaXoi^^  oe«i'<rra<  Treptairw^ 
fievov'  tj  yap  o^cTa  Kai  (iaptla  etp  irtpitrirwiiivriv  at/vep^ovrtu' 
ctaTi  ovv  fiaKpi^  irapaX^yeToi'  aiTta  iffTlv  tj  avvaXottpi^ 
auT^  yap  eTToirjav  irXtfaiatrnt  t!}  Xrjyovarf  tijv  fiaxpav'  if 
fxevTot  nXrfTiKti  etTTiv  u>  Vloaetoov  oia  tov  6  Kat  ei  apa  eirX 
Twv  6(V  ofi'"  fiapvTovttiv  tf  trapaXtlyovcra  t^  yevtxrj^y  XtjyoMTa 
yiveTat  Ttj^  KXtjTiKrj^'  (Tti<l>povc^,  cw(Ppov'  TX^/iovoVt  TXijtxoV 
nXartowo?,  TlXaTtoVf  oiaT^  Wotrftoov  ov  Uoaeictov  eta  too  w 
pityaXov'  fi^troTG  ovv  Gtret^tj  o't  ^^ptet^  Ilocreioai'  elTO* 
o^vTovat^y  licTeoiw^av  Tor  Tvirov  tov  o^eoK  tovov  koi  cm 
TOVTO  oia  TOV  o'  o'l  yap  Aft>j«fi(  Tpe'irov<rt  to  to  €«  d'  Trpw- 
Toy,  vpoTo^'  e-npitOf  ^vpia'  civpcuM,  aKpav'  koI  <pvXatTtrov(ri 
TO*"  Tovov  7rX»;y  twv  irXttOvvTiumv.  OviJev  e'ts  /3wiJ  TrXiji' 
Tov  Kapvafimv*^'  ov6ev  eU  9w¥  ttXi/k  to?  AcftdpaJw"  xai 
yap  TO  Xlotreictoy  ael  Xeyei  6  vottjTt)^  Xlotrti^atvv'  Kai  o\ 
DOttoTot  Ola  TOV  I  XlotTidalwv'  Icure?  no(r«ioea)i»*  AcDMei; 
l}o(reioav  papvTovat^  7  Kat  HoTtcat'  AioXeii  UoTtodv  o^v- 
ToMftis*  Totxavra  ey^o/tev  Xf'yeti'  irept  avTov.  Outwv  iro«- 
ovvTCu  TOV  riocTfiottlfoy  Tijv  X^yovoav  irurrai  OictXeicToi'^  itat 
o  irottfTTji'    Iwvfi'    Awy3t€?9'    AJoXets*    !5oca>Toi. 

Td  ec?  ^  anovoiaKtXf  ei»  deafi  fjjiKpd  fiev  wy  Ktfpta  t^ovo- 
yev^  ap<reviKa  iv  Geatt  ve  fiaxpa,  xat  fitj  ttj  K€uvrj  e-rri  ycw- 
idist    «is    00*    4>aX»|(ci;9»   *^a\tjKovy    Av^rj^  Avfow  TraTrjp  H/n>- 

'*   9IS.  tl%  au¥. 

'*  The  utn*  observation  occurs  in  Ihe  tje«ti»e  of  Heroditn  irtpi  fioviipovt  Xr^vwv 
p.  9.  2y.  where  %  puuge  from  tlio  Triptolemiw  of  Sophocles  i«  quoted  in  which  i)i« 
wonl  oc<ur». 

••  r.  oUif  «U  fc>>wv  ttX^u  Toi  &t^iKpm».  IlerDdlui.  wtpi  paw.  k.  ibid.  £(710.  M, 
|».  W4,  49;     dr£ix/>»t>  vid  Affi/iMy, 


^ 


Anecdofn  Bororciana. 

ooTou"  S,ep^rrs'  Ki^tfs-  Ktpf^  ovoftxtra  irorafAwv'  llavSrfi 
Kai  oaa  Qecei  fxaKpa'  xXiJi'  tw  ''OvXrfi,  ''OitXijto^'  tliyptj9, 
niyprp-os'  Naijv,  Noj/tos'  MtV^»/v,  Me^^f/Toy*  llapv^y  Hop- 
ytj^os  Kai  TO  Mopyrji  kcu  fxdoQXtfi. 

I  a  tU  "v^  fiapvTova  apfrevuca  'iao(Tv\Ka^o9  KXiverat' 
jifivarjVt  yipt/aov'  U^(Vi/?,  lip'uTov'  Nto-ip,  NiJOf'  Ay^iatfii 
Ay^uTov^,  e;(ETai  ^  xat  to  epyov'urrfi'  Koi  e*  ri  erepov 
apaeviKov  eis  ov  TrXt/y  tov  TjjXauytj^^  TtiXavyov^'  ookci  yap 
tlMopTijcrBcu  To  ofof^a- 

Ta  €*V  ^  ^pvTova  apaeinKd  Itjoa-uXXa^w  KXtwToi' 
Ta  cU  avvBera  irupa  OrjXvKwv  yiyvopieva  ovo^ara  vTrctrraX- 
Ai«iwi'  Tvv  wapd  Tou  Kfj  cTTt  ycvtKtt^  £19  ou'  StKij.  EXXavt^ 
oUrj^ "'  EWai/ooiKot/'  yuvrj^  fiuroyvvrjv  *'  fAitroyvfoVf  tuj^^fiijj 
Tlvpatj(fxtjv,  Tivpa'f)^fjiou'  xai  wavra  traXiv  ra  irapa  twv  fU 
$  &tj\vKilo»  traprjy/Jttva'  eWev  ouv  to  01/71),  TtjXa"y*Ji'  """'(JJ* 
ovK   ep  ■■  ■       -^-^  ■  — .1     eitro/xetf   uTt-ecTTaXfitvuJix    Ttoi' 

irapd  TO  nf'  tovtwv  yap  ffiV  owv  »}  'yewifij*  otov  Tavv^mjiy 
Tavv^Kow'  atx<p^KT^,  dfj.(ptjKOVs^*'  eiri  oe  tmv  o^vtovoiv  €k 
oUs.  Ty^*;,  cin"i/p^7/c^*  evTv^ow'  TraXt/,  »cr07raXiyS ''^  icroTraXow* 
aXKri'  eTtpaXiajt,  cre/xiXifovf*  'Jo'Teoi'  d«  on  vapd  Tt)»  vlXk^v 
ouofiaTa  ota<popawTat'  irt}  fiev  fiy  ov  vij  ofl  eh  ows'  M*vaX- 
jc»7?  'ya^  MewiXiroi'*  S^raXo;?  /*€»<  StraXxov"  tt^  ^c  2tTaX- 
*eew,  Trri  Se  SiTaXxoi)?*  wo-re  dwoTaji  /xei'  ek  a?  ira^a  jo^^a 
€<rrt  TO  aXxai  koI  cf  avTov  €\et  ti^v  <rvy$€<nv'  oSev  to  ijXaX- 
K€v'  oTTOTc  c€  fi?  OU  TTopu  TTjv  aXxtju'  KOi  irpo^  otatpopov 
<TvvO€<rtv  oid^opoi  Kai  ij  kX(o"*9'  vept  oe  tov  TtjXavyovs 
^vofiev  St*  e-^et  d<pop»r}v  Tifv  diro  oJ^vToywf  twi*  th  tji 
avvOeTWv  ^apwOivTUy  t))v  ovtyiv  kX'ktiv  (pvXaTTet-  YloXuvt* 
Kov^^  ilvpwjOeyovi'  irayKpaToi^'  TrauTpowovv'  tjv  ovv  TtjXav~ 
•yijy.  KoX  Ty  Xoy<p  twv  ol^wo^evuiu  ea")(e  ti/m  yeviKTjv*  yevo- 
fitvov  ce  KOi  Kvptov  Ttfv  ti£v  KX'njiy  e^fXa^c  tov  0€  tovov 
fxerel^aXcv  ^v  fiev  ovv  TrjXavy^,  TijXavyoi/s  o^vTovutv  iraXiy 
oi   Kai   TrjXauytj^^    TtjXavyov  ^pvTovws.       To  fievroi  Aivtji 


"  MS.  aCCi7eaff£oi-.  **  MS.  om.  Nioift  and  Ayxl^nft. 

'•  MS.  'FAXamfiU^,  "  MS.  yvyj^  fitav 

**  MS.  di^ipUtr,  •ifi'ttUovt.  **  HH,  om.  tv-nt^'i*' 

**  H8>  oni>  **  3[S.  £iTnXiAifT  H(v  XtTaXlxfv. 

^  MS.  wf\t»iitoit. 


I 
I 


418 


Anecdota   Baroixiana. 


two  K\i<Tm  aredefaro  ore  efrSeriKov  'Aictj^^    Aidoi/j'    efreidiy 

Ta  ei?  uJk  o^vtowi  o«i  tov  w  KXiverat  irXrjv  tow  xavup 
Kovovos'    oafpuwff  ca<pvwvo^  Kat   vapOevtov*^  waf^evuvw. 

To  eiy  i;c  aTTO,  aTrXtoi'  'yivoyuei'a  tiJi/  tow  airXot;  Kkunv 
«5^er  vyjfav-)^Vy  vyj/at^evtK'  epiau^ijv^  epiav)(€vo^'  evpvXifxrjv 
evpvXififvo^. 

Ta  eiv  ijv  XijyovTa  fiovoauXXal^a  m"?  o>^a  fiovut^  BtjXvKa 
Ota  Tou  i/oy  K-XIverai  firjv  firjvoi'  (nrXi/if  ctttXj^i'os'  <T(p'^v  (T<prjvot' 
pf)¥  prjvo^'  Trrtjv  ^  xT»;r(J«'  fiovins  OtjXvKa  cm  to  <pp^v  fppe- 
V09'      Kara     n     oe    fiovnK    OtiXuxa,     on     kuI    to     ^»;i/    earn 

9fiXvKOV. 

Ta  CIS  f  /loi'OO-iJXXa/Ja  m^tci  ot<p66yyov  ctd  Tmi  k  *cXi- 
veTat'  irpot^  wpotKO^'  yXav^  'yXauKos'  dav^  oaoKOi^ '  ov)^ 
vyt<o\-  ce  TO  rpai^  VpatKo^'  i/'yiwy  apa  to  pal^  patKW*  owj^ 
OjUQ>f  de  TO  al^  ai^yo?  CTretoi/  fxova  dira  (ptuv^eiTo^  tjp^aTO' 
wapaXXa^av  o«  Ktrrd  tiJi/  ap^ovtraf,  rjXXa^e  Kai  kotu  Tt}v 
xXiatv. 

Ta  eiv  f  ;ioroCT(/XXa/3o'  /atj  fieru  tow  y  tj(OVTCt  to  a 
<7vye<TTaKtx€vov  cid  tov  k  kXtverai'  cpd^  cpaKo^'  cap^,  <rap~ 
K<K'  -TTTO^  TTTOfc-ov  o-tj/xaii/ct  Ttjy  TTTfjcrtv,  TTpd^  TTpaKos^  ird^ 
inixop'  avuXoywi  apa  to  TrXei^  ttXoa^os'  irapaXoyttn  o€  to 
•yXa^  yXoKo^'  €<ttI  5e  f^rdytj  yaXairro^  av^TJT^K^.  tepica- 
iieOa  oe  wj  m^to  too  y.  Sid  to  aTpdy^  avt/eaTaXfievov  Kal 
Old    TO  ftd^   TO   eTTi    Ttjv   o"Ta0oX7s. 

Ta  ei?  f  Xtjyovra  /xovotruXXa^a  ey^ovra  ev  T»  Toiv  <pvtT€t 
fiaxpaiv  did  Tov  k  kXimtqi'  -tttoJ^  irTtuKo^  6  Xayotdi'  wXf 
oiXxov'  irpw^  irpWKOi'  /3aJf  jSttfKOff'  Ktj^  ktjko^'  irapd  tovto  koi 
o^')^  o<py}KOi'  t]ndpTt)Tai  apa  to  ^n^  ^TXP^  ^tci  to*/  X 
tcf«  CO  eiTTov  Kal  /3»/ko9  aXX  ot/^  evprjTat  ev  ^ijtret'  o€t 
oe    KaTO   TpavTO   Tay    Tiyy   ^iprcw?   (^oiiia?    Ttjpeiv. 

Ta  CIS  f  X»i'yoi^a  fioyoavXXafia  e\o»Ta  ev  ti  tcoi'  ^ff€t 
fipa-)^ewv   Std    tov    k    KXiveTaf     Kpe^    cpexor*     i^opf   /Sojoro?* 

"  MS.  om.  iraf>9«iutr.  "  MS,  wnft- 

*•  Thin  word  dMi  noi  o«ur  in  the  Lexirou. 

*  This  woni  i«  ncw. 

^'i  I  am  not  nvinrt  ttt  imy  othcv  autbority  I'oi  itiit  vord. 


Anecdota  Barocciana. 

Kpo^  KpoKO^  evBev  tj  c^TiaTiKt)  **  iroXX»;i'  Kpoxa  ""  vpo^  irpoKos' 
ri  oi/f  TO  <p\6]^'  ovK  eOTt  fxovov  aWa  ko*  to  Xcf,  Xcyos' 
ewf'i  TauTa  ptjfxaTtKa  t'lai'  to  fAev  ciiro  tov  ipXeyw  to  ce 
mro  TOV  \ey<a'  eireJ  ovy  to  prifxara  Sio  tov  y  e'latv  ofio'ibyi 
Koi  TO.  ovOfiaTa'  ij  Kal  aXXto^'  CTrfi  to  X  i'^ovtriv,  ovo^v  oe 
Twf  aXXtfi'  TO  X  eT^^cf*  tj^  T«  ovv  kotu  ow>  Tpoxoi*?  irapaX- 
Xdaaovrai   ij   aTrd   yeveaecov  tj  avo   (TTOij^cioi/    otd    tov  X. 

Bv/^Xoj  €. 

EvTaU^a  ^tjTQVfi^v  Sta  tI  to.  e/s  r/^  «U  ovv  f^owra  tjjv 
ysvtKi)v  ovofiaTa  €yovtji  Ttfv  KXyjTtKTjv  ciy  ey*  0*01^  Kupt/ir 0x175 > 
Ei/fliwafouy  to  EiipiJffait«"  ■rXiji'  tou  tciji^ow  ouocTtpov  ea-Ttv 
««  os>  Xfyo^ew  on  Attik^  e0ei'  effe?w)*  'y*'P  oij^oJ?  e7rt<p€- 
potrrat  xijr  kXittikj/*'*  *•>  -AirwXAo'y*^*'*;  «ai  w  ATroXXo-yei/es' 
eirti  Kal  Ti^tf  a'lTtaTiKiiu  cij(uk'  toc  Tura^fpyi/c"  «ai  tom 
Tiija<fi4pvti  ciKoKovSov  v-nayowrt  K\i\TiKtjv  tt)  T't<Ta<pepvtjy  Trjv 
w  Ttaafhtpi'tiv'  ayapipivCerai  Kat  o  tovo^  eiret  to  ei'v  i;y 
Kvpia  (JvvOeTa  c-^ovra  xXi/TiKas  els  f?  avaopofitjv  wotovvTOi 
Tovov,  6  At/fioa0cvfj^  to  AtifiocrGives'  to  fxevTot  Evpv<raK€^ 
KaTa  cuo  TpoTTov^  avepifiaa^  tov  Toyov'  Tip  Xtiytp  Twi;  ov~ 
ccTepwv  Kal  t^  \6ytp  twv  Kvpmv. 

ZrjTOViiev    oe     TTtuv     Set    avayvwvat     Xelojcev    tj    Xeitoce^' 
el    Tu    ets    tt*i    (TvvOera   e-)(ovTa    KXtiTiKTfv    e'ti    es    a>v/3i/3a^et 
TOV  Toyov    o<p<iX€i    txvaywit^K€<r0ai  Xsiwoes'    aXXa   /jt^   iiwfiev 
avTO    auvBerov    aXXd    Trapdyoiyovy     tT\tjtiaTii^ovat     5«     oiIto 
T(i/f y   ovTtvi '    Xeitoacijt     Xeioiotjrs    ei'   auvaXotipji    0  Toii   Xoois 
dpetTKWV     edv  ovv    tovto    owfiev  fteXXo/jiev   ^riTeiv  Kal  TrXeTa* 
vapd  TO  Xe'iov  ovv  to  d-jraXov  ws  Kat  6  vottjTt)^  ti}de  wtj^. 
fi€Ttt    -j^etpa^  aveXictttv 
ATpiTTTOw  aTraXa?. 
Xetoi  ovv  o  Xeiwoti^'    rroOev  ovv  outo  dwfiev  TrapaytaQai',,  atro 
yevtKt}^  **    rj    dird    TrXttOuvTiKt)^ ;     iroT*^i'   ovv    tv    ovcoorpi  ^    if 
ovtov  ovwcrfi'     €YOfAev    d-TTOcet^tu    OTt  died    yeviKti^  **    aXX     ov 
irtpi    TovTov    ouv    Xmo^rj^^'     v^aTO^    v^aTwhr]^'    (iod^   ^ow^f/s" 

"   Uaiod  Op.  II.    1.17>   ^-niiiotit  i^  iwaipm  foWtiw  Kpona  pinpiva^ai. 

"  M8.  T<M«';>»>vt|»  all  Uirouph. 

*)  Horn.  Od.  <}.  IfiO.  wplr  ydp  Kdftw  X''^***  •u^kwv.  Ac. 

"  Read  <^i<c^t.  ■■  Re»d  Stf«v  Avimitiu 

»  Rcmd  hiKiix.  «  MS.  >i\ti»i<^. 


I 


n 


il8 


Anecdota  Barocciana, 


dvo  KXitrei^  aveoe^aro  6t€  eirtOeTtKov  'Aiotf^,  'Atoovi'  cirFidi} 
re'TTTuMtev    civ    yapaKTi/joa    TraTfHOVV/jitKOv  ofiotov  eyevero  tov 

Ta  6(9  OH'  o^vTova  oia  tov  w  fcXiVerai  vXiJi'  tov  icavwtt 
Kcurovo^'    oa<pva}Vf  oa<pvwvoi  xai   frapSevtov*^  irafBevwvo^. 

Ta  €(?  fiv  atro^  atr\wv  yivofieya  tiji*  tov  airXov  itKitriv 
«j(tt'  vypaO^tiv,  v^ai'xfvo^'  eptaO-^tjVy  ipiavyevo^'  evpvXifitiv 
eupvXiftevo^. 

Ta  elt  rjv  Xtfyoirra  ^ovoovWa/Ba  firj  ovTa  fiovw^  BijKuKa 
Ctd  TOV  voi  kXIwtoi  fi^v  t^fjvo^'  (TfrXttv  (rvXtjvo^'  <j<p^v  tT<prjvo9' 
pnv  ptjvoi'  TTT^v '"  TTTijros'  fiovw^  OijXvKa  Old  TO  <jipr}v  <ppe- 
vos*  Kara  ti  oe  fWvtiK  BrjXvKdt  on  koI  to  ^tjv  ecrn 
BrjXvKov. 

Ta  6IS  ^  fiovotruXXa^  nerd  dttpOoyyov  oia  Ttw  k  kXi- 
MCTOi'  wpot^  frpoiKov'  yXa^^  yXavKov'  Sav^  SavKm  ** '  oi;^ 
vyioh  oe  TO  Tpai^  FpaiAoy"  vyiw  apa  to  pai^  patKov'  otr^ 
OMW9  oe  TO  ai^  aiym  eireicij  Movd  dwo  (ptov^etfTov  rjpl^aTo' 
wapdXXa^av  oe  koto  ttjv  aprj^ovaav,  rjKKa^e  koi  Kara  ttjv 
kX'iaW' 

To  «s  f  luiovocuXXa/^'  /*»)  lueTa  tov  y  e^otrra  to  a 
truvetTTriX/Aeifov  dta  tov  k  KXtperat'  ^pf^^  opaxos'  <Tap^,  <TUp~ 
Ko^'  trrdl^  •TtraKov  <T*}fiaivet  t»}v  ttt^ctii',  "srpdl^  irpaKO^^  iro^ 
ircuop'  dvaXoyw^  apa  to  irXaf  arXaicoy*  irapaXor^uK  oe  to 
"yXci^  yXaKo^'  e<rrl  Sc  ^ordvij  "/oXafcroy  av^^rtKi}-  aptaa- 
fi€$a  0£  fit]  fierd  tov  y.  Cid  to  aTpdy^  trvvetTTaXp^evov  koI 
Old   TO  pd^  TO  evl  Ttji  <rTa^fX^j- 

Ta  eh  f  X^yovra  fjLovocvXXu^  e-j^oyra  ev  r*  TteJi;  (pvaet 
fAcucpwv   Old   TOV   K   /cX/ctTai*    TTToi^    TTTiiJcoy   o    Xaytooi'     toX^ 

wXkOV'     TTOW^     TrpWKOS'     ptOq  ptd«0$'    KtJ^  KT}KO^'      TTUpa     TOVTO    KOt 

tr<pTj^  (T<prjKOi'  ^fidpTtfTai  apa  to  j3»;g  ^*rx.o^  ota  tou  j^ 
TiwV  oe  e^TTOv  Kat  j^tjKo9  dXX'  ov"^  euptjTai  ev  yjii^aei'  oeT 
oe   KUTa   Trdvra  Ta^   Ttj^  ^i/trcwv   tpayvai   T^pe7v. 

Ta  eU  ^  XiJ'yorra  ^oi'twyXXa/Sa  e)(OVTa  ev  ti  tw*-  <pv<ret 
^pa'^ewv   Old    tov    k    KXiveTOf     Kpe^    Kpexoi'     popi^   popxos " 

"  MS.  oin.  irapBtrtip.  "  MS.  ■mft. 

**  Thin  word  docs  not  occur  in  the  I^fxirotm. 

■  Thii.  word  is  new, 

"*  I  am  imt  nware  of  $My  other  authority  for  tltU  votd. 


Jn4icdota  Baroccuxtia. 

Kpo^  KpoKo^  evBev  ^  aWiaTiKt}  "  iroWtjv  KpoKo'^^  ""/'<'?  wpotcos' 
tI  ovv  to  <p\o^'  ovK  eaTi  fxovov  aWa  ko*  to  Xe^,  Xeyos' 
ewei  TavTa  ptj/^aTiKa  euxi  to  fxfv  utto  tow  tpAtyto  to  o€ 
avo  Toiu  Xr^iD'  eVeJ  ovf  Ta  jo^^aTa  dia  tov  y  e'ttjiv  o/iotW 
cat   Ta    ovofiaTa'    fj   Kai   aWais'    e-n-ei  to   \    eyovaiVf    ovoev  e€ 

TWV    aWoiV     TO    X    «I)^€K,    WS    TB    OVV    KUTU    CVO     TpOITOV^    TTapoK' 

\a<T<Tovrat  ^   uwo  •yfMcrews  1/  airo   crToip^ecoy   ctd   tov  X. 

BCPXo^  ۥ 

^vrauda  ^rjTovfiev  via  tI  to  els  i;s  ei?  ow  ej^oi'Ta  ti/k 
'y€i'«»;i'  oyoMOTa  e^oyfft  Trjc  kXtjTiKtjv  els  cs'  oToy  Ei/pytraKiTs, 
EvpwjaKov^  (o  Kvpv<T€uc€^'  ■ffXi)*'  Toi/  TCi^oyy*  ovoeT€p6v  etTTiv 
flif  0$)  Xeyofiev  ori  Attikip  eSet'  exetvot  yap  oivulf  evtdie-' 
povrat  Tfjv  K\rfTtKTjv'  to  ATruSXoyevtj  Kai  w  AvoWoyevK' 
eirtl  Kai  ttjv  a'iTiaTtKr]v  oi^tiJv*  tov  'Vitja<l>€pv7jv''  kuI  toV 
Ttcra<p€pvT}  UKoXovOov  vrrtiyovai  KXtfrtKTjv  t^  lCi<ra<f>€pvriy  Ttjv 
01  TtiTa<pipvtjv'  avafiiPa^eTot  Kat  6  toikk  exc)  Ta  ei's  i;s 
«t//3ta  {ryi'^era  6;^o*'Ta  KXtjTucdi  eU  cr  cwadjOo/uijir  Troiot/rrat 
TOPOVf  o  AtifioaOeiijjs  to  Atj/xoaOevev'  to  mcvtoi  ILvpvffaKes 
Kara,  cvo  Tponov^  av€^i^a<Te  tov  tovov'  Tip  \6y^  Ttav  ov- 
osTepivv  Kai  r^  Xoytp  twv  Kvpitov. 

XrjTovfiev    oe     ww^    oei    avayviavat     Xemdei    tj    Xei<vo«(* 
el    Ta    eh    v^    avvOcTa   ex^vra    kXi}tikt}v    c'k    es    avafit^^ei 
Toi*  TOfov    o^PelXet    avaytvt^cTKeaOai   Xeiwoes'    dXXa    fit)   6^ne» 
avTo    avvBerov    a\Xa    wapaywyovt     ff^ij^aTi^oucrt     oe     avTo 
Tit/ey    ouTtu%'     Xetwadtji     Xeiwcrj^     ev    (TuvaXoidttj    o  Toii    Xaols 
dpetTKoyv'     edy  ovv    tovto    ouifxev  peXXoMtv  ^tp-elv  Kai  -rrXeta* 
napa  to  Xuov  ovv  to  aTraXoM  ok  Kai  o  'TrotyjTt}^  woe  Trt}  **. 
^i6Ta'   yeipa^  dveXxtov 
'ATp'fTTTOW  oTraXay- 
XetoV  ovv  0  Xeitvorfi'   iroOtv  ovv  avTo  cwfxei;  irapayetruaii  atro 
yevtKrj^  ^    17   diro    TrXtjOvvTiKt}^ ;     woTepov   ovv    to    dvwotf^'^    ij 
ovwv   ovwStik'     eyoficv    drrooetj^cu   oTt  ottc!    yeviK^^ "    aXX'    ov 
■jrept    TovTov    ovv    Xeiwvrj^^     vvaTo^    vdaTworji'    poo-i  (yowoijs 

"  Heaiod  Op,  ti.   Ift7-  ^-r^ttavt  if  iinroAptf  woKXniu  KpStiM  iAtfp6tta«9ai. 

1  S18.  Ti^aipifivtiu  mil  Uuough. 

**  Horn.  Ud.  ^'  lAO.  iTftlf  yap  Kdfit  x'*/"**  ^t^Kttw,  A(< 

'*  Rewl  tvtxrpf ■  **  Read  iJ«w  JfuKliiv. 


Ane^dota  Barocciana. 


I  i/MTuJcPS*  T€TpavTai  oe  \eimof^  *  a^pn^v  SeaoKev  ort  -Tra- 
ipwvvfiiK  ^  evyota  irapa  Ttp  ■jrattjTtj'  to  te  x^  'yevm^V  5iaT< 
\^pwta.Krfit  EvpuaaxotK*  oTi  to  eis  ^  mt^oa  ra  «Iy  or 
oviieTepa  ets  ot>s  »/  'yeyiftrt}"  ev6d  ce  ovic  c<jti  tovo^  aWa  vc~ 
pte'iXtyrrrat'  Ka'i  o^vroi'a  Kal  fiapvTova  xal  irepunrm^eva  ica- 
&o\ov  yap  e<TTt'  kaKotjStj^  koxoijBovs'  evTeXij^  eureKovt'  Aio- 
yevrfV  /^loyevovi'  Kara  ro  HupvaaKtjv  Et/puo-oicoi/y*  to  fietrroi 
^v(ppaTov^^  traptjKoyijTat  koi  to  K\edv0ovs'  to  yap  «v 
fls  aCvOera  wapa  to  eij  as  oviterepa  yivofietm  ei  nrj  "j^apaK!- 
Tv/O  KttiKvvf  Old  TO  tirt  yeviKtj^  eii  oUs'  etiro/xev  ci  /i»)  -j^apaKTijp 
KwXvTj  md  TO  AfieXtj^  *"  'Am«X»;tos  wa/«i  nXccTww  koi  to 
nfi€(jrfi  *  a  etTTi  koto  ttT€pijaiv'  vTreaToK^ievou  de  yapOK- 
Ttjpoi  e<rTi  TO  A\t9epcrtp"  cxf<7ri/A€iof/x€vov  «at  to  dyKvkox'^*- 
Xijv»   K«i   TO  nap    Attikoi^   SwoeKe "  ■  ■  o^g/Xet  coidcice^** 

ot/    ydp    irtpl    TOP   TOwi/    i/Dr  cotl,    eiptirai ■  fiera- 

TOiovtTt  yap   Ta    eiy   rji    KaToXtjyovra    cijf    cv'     TroXXarj;   'y<x/' 
tj  ypij(TK   €Trt    Kvpitov  (Twavm^  Kal    evt  wpoatiyopucmv  ok  «ri 


[>tf   da)C€ 


U     Of 


Ai^v 


Tou   CtvdeKa  tqi  ""  ttai  dpuoireTat'    iXiovfto^'  koi   eiri  rot/y  ■ 

—     ■  ovK    ecTTi     irapa    to    yeiXos'    oKKa   wtrirep 

T^   KOfiJj  oKTipfKourj^  —  ■■  ovTWi    X^^*t    ayKu\o-)(^i\ovi. 

Botd)  ■  Tpawetcrj^    TVS'    «»     oitpSoyyov'    eU   to 


Oe'iKu  TeOeiKO-    XtfTovfiev  6e 


i;(CT€a»7re<r<ri 


SoTtKtj   irXtjBvvTtKi^'     \iyo/i€v  oti    euTiv   eu(?ei«    t€    KTedrof 

KTeuTo"  w*    rrpo^Tov  -rrpo  . 

In  the  same  MS.  from  which  the  above  fragment  is 
taken  are  some  other  unpublished  gramniatical  extracts  From 
Herodian,  to  which  his  name  is  prefixed.  They  relate  to 
the  decJensions  of  Greek  nouns,  and  have  been  in  great 
measure  incorporated  by  Chtcroboscus  in  his  Scholia  on  the 
Canons  of  Thcodosius,  from  which  Bekker  has  given  copious 
extracts   in    his   Anecduta.       Herodian    however    being    the 


I 


"  MS.  ifVcicB^ec.  *  MS.  tCfiuipfiiiTou. 

**  MS.  ftriXiix.     Sec  CbtwobMC  Bokker.  Anetd.  Or.  p.  1189. 

**■  Ch«en>bo*cu]i  reiuU  dt^ivif.  Ibid.  y>.  UW.  $.  31. 

"  ChterobOfc.  p.  1190.  'AX^ipvot. 

<■  lUftd  ^mi€n4Tn<l.  "  Acad  emintirtt. 


«*  MS,  itoitttai. 
**  Read  xTtmrov. 


**  Rod  iroSw  *i  xTfaVctrirt. 


Anecdota  Bnrocetana. 

original   author,    it  seems  right   to   exhibit  these    fragments, 
though  of  little  intrinsic  value,  in  their  primary  fomi. 

Hpiuoiavou   vepi    vafMytayaiv  yfviKwv 

atro  StaXeKTtiii' 

Cod.  Barocc.  76.  fol.  S84. 

At  OerTaXticai  ycvtKol  e't  ntv  airo  Tf-effur-n-wtiet^v  Kotvwv 
yeyucuiv  uxri  VftoTrefiKnruivTcu'  olov  KoXoto  <To<poio'  dwo  ^ 
(iapuTovoiv,   vpotrapo^vyovTat   otov    UptafMUo   ^iKtuo. 

Atto  At-tucw;/  yeyiKwv  Kara  rrXeofaerfiov  tov  o  yevofxe- 
vai'  ei  fxev  airo  o^vTovtov  yeviKwv  tsxxi  TrpoTreptcnraivTai  oiov 
[leTcttt,  Ilcretoo'  ^Tepeto  ^TepeMo'  TaKaa  Tdkavo'  e'l  oe  dvo 
papVTovoov  Trpovapo^vvoifTat  otov  tov  ^Htfot  toD  ^Uvum}'  tov 
Avcpoyeo)  TOV  Avdpoyewo'  tov  tovov  KOTaXe-^BevTM  i>td  to 
firj  dvvaaOat   Trpo  Tpmv  trvWa^wv  iriirTeiP  tovov. 

Ai  oia  TOV  tto  iwyiKal  yei^iKUi  e'l  fiev  utto  fiapvTovwv 
yewKwv  Koivwvovat  Trpoirapo^vvovTat'  otov  ATpeiieio'  'Op€a~ 
Tc«'  airaSei^  otjKoyoTi  oitcrat,  7ra<r)(ovaat  oe,  irpo  /iias  ey^ovtrt 
TO**   tovov'     E^pfiieioVj    Epfi€ieu>  Kat  ev  avyKOTrrj    V^p/ji€t(o, 

ilptpi     HpfxeicoTC,   Kai    H<pai<rToto  avoKTos    (H-  O.  Sit.) 
€1   C€   avo    TrepKTtrwfxevtiiV    Ttvwv    yeviKwv    wcrt    irapo^vvovrai' 
avXtp-ov,  avXrjTew'    Kattrov,    Kavceiv'  ovo^xa  xvptov. 

Ai  via  TOV  atu  airo  fxev  ^pvrovwv  (iapuvovrai*  airo  oe 
ireptairtofxivoiv  ■7repur'rr<^vTai'  ATpeloov  'ATpeioao*  dpyetrrov 
apye<rrao'  To  fxev  frpofftjyopiKov  (rv<TTeXXet  to  a»  Kai  oid 
KaOapov  tov  ob  kXivctui'  to  de  Kvp'ioK  CKTSTa/ievov  e^et  to 
a  OK  ia'oa't/\Xaj3a»9  KXivovrai  kot  a-ro/3oXf}K  tov  a'  otov  Xda' 
tos  KXiv€Tai  TO  M^yai'  to  fiev  KvpiuK  exreTafxevov  ej^ei  to  d 
Kat  airofBoX^  tov  a  ttoici  tijv  yevtK^v'  otov  o  tteya^  tov 
fUya'  TO  Se  ewiBcTov  ava-TeXXei  to  d"  *rai  o^ciXei  01a 
KaOapov  tov  uy  kXi9tjuat  ofoK  tov  ficyaoi,  aXXa  ytvcTOt 
erepoKXtTov  Kai  xXlvcTat   tov  fie^^aXov. 

AmT/    etnev    o    rej^votov    'jraca    yevucij    f**    ov    Xriyoutra 

TpOTFr}    TOV    OS    e«     (    TiJj"    BoTtK^V    TTOUT'    aTVTTOV    yop    SffTt    T(J 

trvfx<J>tgva  ei5  (pwvttevTa  TpeiretrBai'  IfTTeov  5ti  ti  Tpowtj  veV' 
Taj^aJy  •ycj'eTa*'  etTTi  ydp  TpoTri}  kotu  -raBo^'  ai?  eiri  to5 
cXa^/3oXos  eXa<pr}^Xo^'  eoTt  Tpotrti  kutu  -Trapaytayfiv  w9 
itri  TOV  venw  vofio^'  Xeyw  Xo'yos'  etrrt  Tpow^  koto  ota\€K- 
Toi'  W9  e-TTt    TOV    ovapov    oveipo^  A'loXtKw^'    eaTi    Tpvtnj    Kara 


1 


42S 


Jnecdota  Barocciand. 


•jraBo'i  (US  e-TTt  toZ  eXatd^urop  '''  e\atod>vTov'  ecTi  TpoTrrj  xaTa 
KXiatv  ws  evl  Tov  Atovros  AXavTt'  Tpowv  ouv  K\i(X€*in  xal 
Ta  fp<vvrj€vTa  ets  avfi<fiwva  Tpcvom-at'  xat  to  av/m^Xova  els 
tptovrjevra'   koI   tovtov   j^apiv  fixe   Tpoirrj    tov  05   els  *• 

Afar!  ey  toi?  cv'tKOtt  avitZtvyn^yut  e'talv  ai  TrToxreis  ev 
oi  Toi?  xXi;0yvTiKois  oi^k  e'lai  eireiit]  oviKa  to  oyo  irpo- 
awtra  arjua'iVovcC  koi  rovrou  X^P"'  XToxrciy  t»'  ^49  <pwyrj 

rtfTovai'  Ta  ce  Tr\t}8uimKa  xoXAo  Trpoawira  trrifxaivovat  nai 
ov  cvvavrai   elvai  cvve^tvyfxeya. 

Aiart  ei*  tois  cv'ixot%  tj  evdeia  /leTa  a'tTtaTtKtjt  avve- 
^evyvvrat'  »J  5e  'yew*ci)  fxeTO.  ^ortKrji'  e-TreiBt)  avyyeveiav 
e^ei  ft  airmTwcj)  vpos  Ttjv  eiSetav'  xat  ^  ooTuctj  xpov  t»;i/ 
yevtKtjv  sTret  Kal  tov  avrotf  tovov  aKcoefaro*  oiov  o  arofior. 
Toy  avofiov,   tov  avofiov,  T<p  av6\uo. 

Atari  fxi  M^f  Twi'  Sv'iK^v  Kal  toJv  xXi/^wi'Tiicwc,  iJ  atlxif 
coTii/  O|O0i7  jcai  KX»7Ti*f»J'  €v  C€  TOi?  otKoiv  ovK  e<Txt'  eiretdrj 
Trj<t    yeviKij^    ^xrfTrip    &TTiV    ij   ei^dcia   1;    oc    yeviKYf    twv  oXXoiv 

eCTI    fl^Ttip'      €TV€l    OVV      €V    TOlf    CU'iKOl^    KUt    To7?    irXrjOl'VTtKOli 

IJ  yevucrj  cip  1/  Xi/'yfi  om  tovto  r]  avTtj  EtrTtv  opOtj  (tat 
KXrjTtKii'  €v  ^c  ToTc  fi'ifcoTf  »/  'yft'itf?;  Sta<popdv  tcXik^v  ^X"' 
•KOTe  yap  to  <r.  xore  oc  to  v.  iroTe  t>e  ro  a'  dia  tovto  ovk 
aei  etrrtv  opOtj  Kai   kX^jtik/j, 

AioTt  ou  KXivofjLtv  6  KoyXias  tov  (co^X/oi  aXXa  tov  ko- 
yXiov'  eweiStj  xoca  yeviKi]  KroauXXd^wv  JcXii/ojuei'^J  fxaKponaTtt- 
XfjKTeiadat  BeXet'  aJp  kXiVci  eKacTTrj  cioX^kto^  to  AiiWa?'  oi 
fi€v  Awpie?^  AtveiVis*  Ati'cm  KXtvowrtv'  oi  de  Y^oturrot  Atvetav 
A'lveiao'  01  ^e  "'iwycr,  Aiceia^  Ativtew'  o't  ^e  iroiimi  Aireias 
Aiveiov. 

Aiaxi  AiVc'af  fiaxpov  fyei  to  a"  cxeto»;  xoffa  yevtKtf 
ovofiaTOv  ei?  <hwv^€i'  Xtjyouo'a  not  •jrepiTToavXXapovtra  T^ 
I'offiv  ef^cme  ^  eKTCivet  rrff  xapaXtf'yowtTai'  saj  (TutrreXXei 
Tijy  XtJ'yoyo'ai'  ofoy  (caXoio  aoKpow'  1;  (ry(rTtXXei  ti;w  xayja- 
X'/'yowjai'  Ka(  cfcTfitVet  ti/i'  X»;'yoy<rav  orov  'Ar^ctdea),  Flr/Xei- 
ofttj,  ripm^ioew*  6t  fiev  ovv  to  A'lvt'iao  ouk  e^cTftve  ttjv 
TtXevTalav  (TvXXa^t}y  di'ayK^  Ttfu  irapaXttyov^rav  cKTctrat, 

Atari  fitj  trpocypafhw^kiv  to  I  ei*  Tti  cuSeltf  tuh'  outKoii'' 
Old  To  fit}  evpiaKcaOai  cv  Toiy  ofiVoi?  aXXo  tcXikoi'  irXtiv  tov 
a  Kai  e.   koI  w.    koi  rj'   tovtov  yapiv  ovk  c^ct   to  av€K(pwvtjTOv 


»•  MS.  tX»«f^vTor. 


Anecdota  Barocdana.  423 

I  T^  coTiJcvs*  eirel  eufWe  "Keyec^cu  Kai  to  I  TiXucov  Tijy 
€v9etas  wv  Tuv  dviKuv. 

Ti  etrrt  trvyKOTnj'  km  tI  awoKowtf  xat  ti  a<paipt(Ti^'  o"fy- 
Koirri  e(JTt  iraOo^  irtpi  to  fi€<rov  ytvofufvoif'  olov  e^aipcroy 
e^aiTos*  npfjioaat'Te^  apcravrci'  ax-OKOirtj  Oe  Trader  ev  TijJ 
reXci  ytvofifvov  oJov  'icp^Ta  \op^'  ouifia  ow'  a^aipetri^  C€ 
iraSoi  €P  Ttj  apyovarj  olov  <tv^  is"   Xcipw  e'lput'    yaia  ata. 

O  Tpas  TOW  r^a  woOevi  o  KavMv'  ra  eiy  as  fxavotrvWapa 
irtpiairwtiei'a  Koivd  ju^  cj^oiTa  ovii^Ttpov  diro^oKij  tov  a 
iroiei  TJjv  yevuctjy  otov  6  \av,  tov  Xa'  o  Aa^,  toC  Aa  oifo/aa 
•TTOTc^iov'  o  0ds,  TOV  da'  o  X^ai,  Toi/  \va'  o  ■Tras,  toD  ■jto* 
(Tijuaiv€i  Se  TOV  -Trpaov*  ei  ce  o^vvovrat  trepiTToauWaf^uK 
liXlvovTat  olov  o  Zav  tov  '/aiuto^'  D^S,  \^paVT<K,  fpa^,  (pav- 
TOV*  <p6av,  d)9avTO^'  icpa^,  Kpavrov  TavTa  ce  oqvvOtjffav  wy 
ptero'^iKa. 

O  opiji  Tou  opij'  vo0ev ;  o  kovwv'  th  ei?  i/v  (ioi/o<ri/XXa/3o 
«t  /!€»'  ■f€pi(Tiriitirrat  aVo/3oX^  too  (T  irotci  ti;!/  'ytw^ciji'*  oioc 
o  Tpij^  TOU  Tprj  o  oprj^  tov  cptj'  ft  oe  o^ui>€Tai  dta  tou  a 
xXrt'erai  otov  ff»}s  tr^Toy'  jSXiJy  ^Xj/tos"    7*^?  yvtjTm'    Kp^, 

KptJTOi.  AlOTt  fXt]  KX'tfW/J€V  O  C^»/9  TOV  OpOV'  KQt  O  Tpifi 
TOU    TpOV'     Ctf5     O       lip/l^V    TOV      F^fAOV    eTTCIO*/    -jraffo    povo<Tv\- 

Xa/3os  €v$€ta  i<yo<rvX\a^^  xXivofiet'tj  aTrojSoXj;  toi;  <r  TTOtei 
Tijv  •yewifijy  oloi'  o  Vpav  tov  ypo.'  o  \va^  tov  yya'  o  povt 
TOV  pov   ovrat^  ovu  kqi  6  6piiv  tov  cpi}, 

riaJy  hXii-eTai  to  iiVKtjv  fiuKov  Kal  fAVKijTo^*  xat  iro<ra 
tTJjfjLaiifei  ;  Teaaepa'  Ta  Kap^ovva  to  einKfifieva  toTs  \v\votV 
ID?   Trapu    KaXXiM^^X^     EjtuXr;'* 

i«  TTOTe  Xv-^yoi 
datoficvoi^  T-vpotyTf^  airjv  eyevovTO  fiVKtjTes. 
jcai   Toi/y  afjuiuiTas  TOVi   Trepl  to  oevcpa  yivofiefov^'   Wi  irapa 
AvTtfia'jftf}  ^^  <pay€  o    otrrd  fiVKtiTa^  Trptvivous"'*^  Kai  to  /xepot 

"  MS.  'RKofitf,  "  1*.  Xi^uoU  iaiafiipav, 

*'  Chirfoboftcus,  who  Is  cited  by  Dckkn  Atiecd.  Or.  Ind.  v.  ftvmjv,  uiAgM  thia 
frftfmeiit  lo  AriXophum.  oiffAau'et  ci  Kai  Tovt  tifiavlTar  Toirt  wtpi  TA  tiifSfta  yi*>«- 
jimtvt,  u«  irafni  ' ApiiTvoijniv4f  i'w^ai  utrKfTat  vpitiiv  &\ro.  Dindorf  ha«  followed 
tliis  authority  in  his  edition  of  the  fragment  of  that  poet,  Fr.  4!MI,  and  reads  vvto^c 
/iirxtj-rav  irpipiVoL'T,  hut  thc  Itarocciait  Ms,  \tA\.  agree*  with  otint  in  auiKning  the 
citation  to  Antlmachut.  If  this  is  so,  the  word  tftayt  hu  been  mctamorphoiiKl  into 
the  termination  of  the  great  comic  poet's  name.  But  did  AntlmacbuB  make  the  penul* 
timate  of  w/mvJvou*  long?  [iirra  ft.  n.  Ed.J 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  SH 


494 


Anecdota   Barocciana. 


at^oiof  TOU  av^fioi'  uTrep  kui  tcroavWafiwi  ekKtViv  o  Apj^i' 
XoYOs"*    ei^ruip  aXX*  airepp(MTi  /xvKfto  irav'^. 

2«t^f;V  Toi*  aa^ov^  voBev'  o  Kavtav'  ra  «<j  ff"  Xi/^orra 
{Jj^oiTa  ovS^Tfpov  eU  ey,  cis  oi/?  e)(€t  T>Jr  'ycwdrijy,  Kav  /3a/9if- 
Tova,  (tai/  o^t'Toi'a,  ica*-  (iTrXa,  kuv  tryt'^eTa'  ofor  cra<pjiif 
aa<pou^f  aafbe^  Kat  ra   oAioia. 

riws  KXiferai  to   ei?   ijj   irepiffirw/uic^'o.     ci   /icf  etfft   irapa 

rie^w^riy  Wepttikov^'  'Ylpatikris  'HpaicXovv'  ei  oe  ukfiv  awo 
avvatpia^uyi  rtov  elc  rj^  eij  oos  «^«  t^i*  yeuiKijv,  otov  60X7; 
©aXou.      Iv^/i^  '  l£^/4ot'. 

Amrl  TO    K^ari}^    KpaTr/rov  e-)(OV  ev  TJj  ei/^cif  to  t  e'tv' 
Tos  c^«  T^i'  'yew«ij>'*    eTreic^  to  t  aira  tov  evcaTuiTov  «^«i* 
TO   yap   eiy   lyc  loM^ixa  ej^oiira  to  vvh^ovov  tov  eycortwros 
ti?  TO?  c^ot/tTi  T^v  yiviKtiv'   otov  \aipb>  \ftptff  \aptfTos'  Xetpat 

Xc/3^S     Xc/3»/T0?'     Tp€fl(i>     TpO/J-lJ^    'VpOfirjTOV'     OVTWi    OVf    KpaTM 

KpaTrjv    KpuTifTOi*        Kai    irwj    to    0vTtj<i     xai    trXtrrtji    otr^i 
f)(Ov<Tt  Ttfv  yefiKtiv  eti  Toy     exeioi^  ovic  €y(ov<Ttv  otto  tow  evca** 
T<uToy   TO   T"    o   "yap   epe^TToJy,   0iJ«   icai   TrXuMO*   co^tJ,   koI   otd 

TOVTO    OVK    f}Ko\uvdri<r€    T^    KXi<r€t     TOV     KpaTTfTOf. 

Vloffa-^w  K\iV€Tai  TO  Kontjv ;  ctyto^ '  Kkiverai  yap  0  i 
KOfitj^j  TOV  KOfiov,  ef  ov  Kai  KOfiew  Iwwicaw*  wffjrep  ATpcc'oijf 
ATpcioov  ATpftaeto  irXiVeTai  oe  Kai  oid  tov  toj'  eiri  Ttji 
a^iaVf  Tfj  Xoytp  twv  ta/nfituv'  6!ov  o  Kofujs  tom  tro/ifjTo^'*  KOftrlti 
KOfiov  tro&ev^  o  /cat/ulv'  to.  diro  tw»  cIv  t;  BtjKvKtJv  eU  ^ 
'yivo/uei'a  papwova  /ii;  cji^oyTa  ovdeTepov  €*s  ev,  et?  ou  c^ei 
Tiji*  'yewjci;!'.  otov  Xetrj^i;  Aia-)^tj^  Aeo-^oi/*  •ywi/i)  fitaoyvvtfv 
fAiaoyvvov  oirrwy  oui'  (cai  to  fcoVr;  fo^*»K  ao^oi^"  to  or  ko^ijtot 
ewj  t*}?  a^tas  Ty  Xo^V  '''V  la/i^tKip  c?rij*eoXoy0»;trc.  Kai 
o*aTl  ov  ypa(peT€U  to  Aa^f^  Aaj^ijTo?  oia  tov  i.  \_aj  «ir*tori 
ovCevoTf:  dpo-eviKtj  yeviKtj  cid  tov  tos  KXtvofAemj  t^>  i  [<tJ  ira- 
fKtXiryeTai'   otoi'  Xe/3i7Tos*    AdprjTO^'   TrpoaKvtTat  ap<TevtKtj  dia 


**  The  BaioceiMi  M9.  159.  cited  by  Prof.  OaUford   Archil.  Fr.  92.    nti%  dW 
d94^^tiyav*   fitmim   mlv'.    LlKmbosrtu  id   ThMdM.  Bekker  Aaecd.   Gr.  Ind.  r. 


i 


Jneedota   Sarocciana. 


«M 


Ta  irapd  ^ooptevm  OrjXvKa'  to  yap  defit^  $efxi[^a]To^  Xeyovaiv' 
o0fv   Trapa   Ttji  Trotrjrti 

Zci/y   de   OefAKTTa^  xeXfivac   (H.  Y.  4) 
Kara  ir\eova<Tfiov  tow  <r. 

Tpaoti^  Vpd^v'  TToBev,  6  Kavwv'  to  e7s  ijs  iraTpwvv/^uiid 
rj  JTOJ  TMTTou  traTpwvufxiKov  ovTU  eiy  ou  e'XJlt  Tt}u  yevtKtiv' 
warpuivvfitKu  ftef  otov  ATptiCt}^  AToeicov'  HrjXeititf^  HfjAcc- 
cof'  Tvirou  o€  TTttTpwvvfxiKov  oiov  liupnrtoT}%  Kvpnrioov'  0ov~ 
KVCicrjf^  OofJtww'dou'  YlpwcrjS!  [lf)0}dov'  To  ce  Vpactft  waTpw 
intfJitKOv  €<TTt'  TOi'  yap  Tov  viov  Tou  ypa  ertjfxali>€i.  Kal  tI 
^ta<peptt  TO  iraTp<»)vvfiu(d  tov  tvwov  tojv  vaTpamvfxtxeLv' 
ota<pepov<riv  aWtjXtvVf  oTt  Ta  TraTpatvvfjitKd  ei$  to  i)io$  Kal 
f'/yovos  dtaXvovToi'  o7ov  o  ATptiotjs  o  vio%  tov  Aroews' 
AiaKtotfv  o  eyypHos  tov  Atwcov  Ta  de  tvttov  waTpwvvfiiKOV 
ovTU  ov  oiaXvovrat  eiy  i/icwv  kui  eyyovou^ '  otov  '  Hpdotft 
ovKvototj^  TavTCL  yap  ov  {jtjfiau'ovxri  Ttsni%-  utoi/  tj  ^yyovov 
oXX    ovofxaTa  fieri  Kvpia. 

\a\KOKpaii  \n\KoKpaTOi,  iroQev ;  o  Kavuiv'  Ta  ciff  cr 
\t}yovTa  o^uTova  ovtu  avvQera  a-no  irapaKetfLtuov  Ka\  (bv~ 
\aTTovTa  filav  uvWu^riv  aurov  tou  irapaKetfiwou  xav  eit 
as,  Kav  cI?  tjv,  Kav  eh  w^,  via  KaOapov  tow  to?  K\iv€Tai' 
otov  KCKpaTai,  xaXKoif/>ds'  ecrrl  w  6  ^aXxov  K€ti€pa<T/i€VQi' 
p€^\ijTat    afiXtji'     'TrewTtoKa    axTttis'       TSTpwTat     aTpwv    6 

aTptOTOi  . 

'Apyt)t  dpyrjTOs  iroBcr ;  o  Kavwf'  Ta  tU  y*!^  Xi/^oi/ra, 
e^oirra  irpo  tov  y  to  tr  ^  to  p  otd  tov  tos  (cXiVoKrai"  otov 
Mityyi/S  MiaytjTo^'  Mopyri^  MopyrjTO^'  fiXipytf^  Mc/ryijToy 
actrnfj-e'iaiTai  to  Apytj^   Apyov. 

Mao"0\i/v  /jLaaQXijTo^  iroQev ;  o  xai/aiv  to  «i  ijv  Xif/oiTa 
oi<ruXXa/3a  icara  ttKuutop  ctd  tov  tos  KXlvovTai'  otov  /ufjXXifp 
^i;XX»?tos'  iroXX»;s  ttoXXijtos'  ^C(r/3X»;y  fxeafiXijTOi'  fidirBXiji 
fiOfrBXtjTOi   atjtxalvei  te  tov  fiefiaXayf^ei/Oit  Xt^poy, 

Kovptjs  KovprjTOs'  vodfv ;  u  Kavav'  to  eiy  i/v  ti?  ow** 
ot<pQityytp  irapaXriyon^va  ind  tov  tot  kX^Wtgi"  oIoi'  Movjot^r 
iVIo)/^i}TOi'    is.ovptj'i    )\oupr}Toii. 

Naiii9    Naii;Tos    To^ei;;     o   Kavtov'     rd    ««    ijy    ^puTOva 


I 
I 


M   MS.  Otfu-ra, 


**  MS.  nj  vie  Mt  ^  n  'iftt^Tyif. 


496 


Anecdota  Baroc<nana. 


lutM/SiKa  M^  ty^ovra  err  evOeia^  to  r  «is  roy  e;(C»  tiJi'  ^erticifi'* 
Natf^V   SatrjToi'   rXoii;^    PXofiiTov*   oia  to  etvcu   Ti}V  m  *rai  oi 

Eo^T?  eaOrfTOi'  ir60ev ;  o  Kavcutr*  xa  ei?  rp  OrikuKa 
fiovoyev^  Ota  tov  tov  wXtVeTa*  ofoi'  iroTiJy  TTori/Tos"  <Ttj/xaiy€t 
oe  Trjv  TTOffii'"  Da/jFj/v  MapvtjToi  Kui  Kara  fxeTaOfcrtr  tov  t 
61$   0  T[apvrj9<K'   trpo^TKelTai  fiovoyevij  eta  to  o  vrj/nepTtj^  tov 

VrffX^pTOVS    ^X*'    yP    OVC€T€pOV   TO    vrj/iepT€t. 

Uoaa-^w  KhiveTai  to  Apfjv ;  €Tf^Ta\t!k '  K\lveTai  yap 
ApT}Sy  Aprp-oi'  f^  01/  ■jraTpwvvfUKOy  AptjTtuorj^'  KXiWrai  koi 
Aptji  Apov  Ttp  "Xoy^}  Tmv  a-JTo  pijfiaTO^  avtSeTtuv  avo  yop 
Tou  pw  TO  Afyai  yivfTat  apipi  a  ttTTeptj/itvo^  too  Xeyeiv'  ev 
yap  TToXenitp  ov  \oyov  a\Xa  Trpa^fw^  XP^'^'  KX'werai  Kal 
Ap€vv  Apcn^  Kotviui  Kai  Apeca^  Attikc^v'  na't  AprjOi  lairicwt' 
Kal    Apevoi    AtoXtKtZv, 

AyKv\oj(eiXtfi  ay KvXo^eiXov  7ro9ev ;  o  KaiUMtv'  Ta  am 
Tuv  eis  Oi  eis  i/s  ovofiara  (iapvTova  eiT«  oxXa  eiT€  irapa-^ 
avvOeTa  fJy  ov  e'^oif<Ti  ti;v  yfyiKi/v  oJot'  Apai^tK  'Apd^tjv 
Apaiiov'  jVnTTtdoy  Aatrl6tfi  AairiBoo'  vjtvijXo^  virvtjXtji  vttv^- 
Xoy"'  CTTTaxow"  emawo^oi  eTTTawooijy  eirTa-TO^oi;'  fviraTpt^ 
evTraTpidoi  eviraTpictji  eviraTpicov'  ovtw^  ovv  x*^IXo9  ayxv 
\o)(€iXov'  ayKvXo-^elXrji  ayKvXo-j^eiXou. 

i\oaa-)^wi  trvvaipetTat  to  e  xal  o;  Tpf)(ws'  trap  ijtiiv  Kat 
trapa  Toit  AOtjtfatOK  ciy  ttjv  ov  olov  ^ti/xoaOfveov  ^tjfxorrBevoui' 
Kal  ei/o'c/3t"os  evtre^ov^  trapd  ce  toIs  Awpteuariv  koi  toFv  lotaiv 
eii  eV  olov   Ico/xeeeof   liofxeveus'  oTov 

\6o^€vcvi  fxev  ov  Xrjyt  fifvos  ftcya" 
avTt  TOV     loo^freov*   irapa  ce  to??  *A9tjvatoK  €vpi(XK6Tat  to  e 
Kat  6  f'ls  Tjjir  €1  cttpQoyyov  Kipvuifiei'ov'   otov  irXeov  wXei*-"   deoy 

Here  KtpvaTat  ewt  t^s  airmTifc-ijy  twh  svik^v  to  e  koX  a 
tf(«  a  ftaKpoi;  koi  ttotc  eiy  a  ;  tj^tKa  evpeOtj  to  e  Kat  a.  €\ov 
irpotj^/ovfxepov  Kpatvijev  rore  ei?  a  fxaxpov  KtpvaTat  olov  tov 
evtpvta  Kat  €V<pvii  koi  €v<pmt'  tov  vytea  Kai  Cyt!}  Kal  vyta' 
^vUa  oe  Trpo  tov  c  xai  a  (vpcOrj  trvfifbtovov'   Tore  e'n  rj  (torov 


**  MA>  irwvtXov  iiwvtXt\9  u-^viXov. 
I'  11.  N.  424  I^«;t<v(V(  !>oi  \-iyc. 


"  MS,  tirrairTCM. 


Anecdota  Barocciana.  4>27 

Kipvarm'  olov  Atj^iotrdevea  ilT/^cwSei'rj*  tvyevea  tuyevrj'  ttXij- 
pea   trXjjp*). 

AtaTt  er  to?s  cwKoif  Ta  ^v'o  ee  ei?  17  Kipvarac  etrt  oe  Torr 
wXi/^fi'TiKots  eir  Tjjr  CI  ol<f>9oyyoi''  ejreiotj  xd  cvtxd  fie't^ova 
■)(po¥QV  QiXowxiv  eytiv  rwv  TrXtfOuyTiKoiv'  to  ce  if  fxei^wv  e<TTi 
Trjs  cT  6i<p96yyov  aJp  wvp'  eavTov  eyov  t^v  ^tucporrfra'  »y  oe 
ot<f)6oyyo^  ec  twv  tuo  <f}tuvtjevTCtiv'  Kai  yap  eU  (TTpaTiwTii^ 
ouo  (FTpaTiwTwv  ovvafLir  e^roy   TifiiwTepw  cffxi. 

AiaTi  Tov  AtjfioaOeyov^  tj  ooTtKrj  twv  trXtjOuvTiKoif  truvai- 
p€iTai ;  ctd  TO  €vpiaK€aBaL  dvafieTa^ii  twv  ovo  ^wvtjevTiov 
avfiLtpwfov  TO  tr'  ovoenoTe  6e  rd  (pu>vr}^vTa  Zvvavrai  <TVvaipt<Ttv 
emw^affSai  e^ovra  juera^i)  <Tvn<p(iivov  «i  p-fj  -jrpoTepov  aVo/3\»^- 
9ti'  wi  eirl  TOV  KpitTTOva  KpciTToa  Kpe'iTTU)'  ov  ouvarai  oe 
dirofi\tj$^t'ai  TO  <r*  exetoij  Trdaa  ooTtKtj  TrXi)9vvTtKij  e'li  1 
ehtpcDvovfievop  Xtiyovca  BeX^t  -wpo  tov  I  e-^eiv  to  <t  tj  ovvdfiei 
r}  evtpyeia'   cvi'dfjui  oioi'  <poivi]^tv'  eiepyeia  cc  Xe^rjfft. 

Atari  rj  aixiaTiKiji  twi'  ■7rXr)9vyTiKwv  uvvatpovfievrf  ciy  ft 
oi<l>9oyyov  cvvutpetTtu.  eiretdi]  •truaa  evBtia  irXrj9vvTtKaiy  eis 
<T  Xtiyoutin  (Tvuatpovueffj  e<7Ti'  Kat  Ttjv  ttWtaTiKtjv  OftoTOvov  Kai 
onoypad>otf  ofioiii>s  ^  Kai  KXtjTiKrn''    olov  o  jioTpvs  tov  ^rpvos' 

W  I^OTpVi'    01    fioVS    TOilv    /3oVS-    fp    jioif^. 

rioTe  Trt  cJ?  a  Xtiyotrra  tpvXaTTovtTiu  ev  ttj  trvvQeffct  Ttjv 
TatTtv  TOV  uTrXov '^  ijviKa  vvpfOwfTtv  uirep  futav  trvXXa^rju'  oTov 
epavunif^  attyepoi'ifTTrpi  evpeTtf^  ewfvpeTrt^  epatTTtjv  irfuo€paa'~ 
T^5*  j^ttj^ts  TOV  KpiTrj^  Kut  oA^pijs*  TavTa  yup  tu  Ti}  avvBeaei 
jiapvvovTai  olov  ZiKaiOnplrtfi'  {^i\aXt}9t}%'  Kat  -^wpts  twv  fiofo- 
o'vXXdf^Qiv  0(0*'  Kpt]t  'E,T€OKptt9  yv^i  tyvtis'  wdv  ydp  ovotux 
fioroavXXapov  ev  Trj  av\'9E<Tei  avafiif^aTet  tov  tovov  otov  y9a>y 
avTo-xBtou"^  wais  ^ovirais'  Opd^  (TautoBpa^^'  "^toptv  tov  Trrmf 
noXviTTw^. 

Atari  to  KpiTt}^  ev  Ttj  avv9ea€i  0apvveTat'  eiretctj  -Ttapd- 
Xoyoi  eoTtv  ev  rij  aVXo'rT^ri  tj  o^eia'  Ta  yap  ciV  os  dpaeviKa 
tPvGKi  OiOvXXapa  ^pvvovTat '  o'lov  7rXvTt\^  c't^ry; '  ^dpTiji' 
yj/aXTtpi'  TovTo  o  7j  fjLcv  Koit'tj  papvv^i  jj  oe  AtBU  O^VV€t. 
Kai  ^lari  to  uXtjOtj^  ev  Tr}  auv9e(r€i  fiapvreTat  \  eireiS*}  ra  otd 
Tov  ri9rj9  (TuvueTa  Tapwvvfia  fiapvv€&9at  B^XovtrtV    tjBo^  <rvvt)- 

^  KttA  %afU9fia^  with  Chorobowus  Bekkr.  Anecd.  p.  ll»). 


4fi8 


Jnecdota  Baroecwna. 


Atari  TO  Tts  crwTTeXkfi  to  Ji  eireidij  xavatv  ea-rtv  o  \eyu}U 
iQTt  TO  Kara  airolioKriv  tov  a  irotovvTa  ovCerepov  ffwreffroX- 
[lievOF   ey^uucri   to    oi-xpovov '    otov  fteyai   /leya  •     Tayw    to^w 

I       rf  T  t  \  \  I 

[4wra>9   ovv   kui    to    tis   t*. 

Tim  (fXiVcra*  to  ^ei/^is'  171'Ua  ^i*  ffpoff»ryo/5*Ko»'  eo-ri  010 
KaBapov  TOV  w**  KXiVerai'  oroM  1;  ^ev^is  t^?  ^fi/^etw'  ivixa 
C€  Kvfi'ua^    Old   KaOapov   tov   ooi   KXiVcrat '    otov   o    Zev^is*   tov 

rittk  JcXiv€Tat  to  Hoi'?  leai  "SA'ii  not  ^fAwis  xal  To/uadit ; 
eta  KoBapov  tov  05"  evfioi)  opo^ora  ctffl  ToXewi'  Ai-yvTrrion*' 
fa.  oe  ovofxaTa  Tiav  wo\€wv  t»;p  ntyvwTOv^  a»s  eiri  to  -kmiutov 
otd  KaOapov  tov  ws  KXlveToi'  X*»pi9  tov  Mc/i^ir  Mcm^ioo^ 
^ovutptv   Movaipioo^ "     Offipi?    OcripiOo?- 

Tlom  eiffiv  a  Xcyei  o  Te\vtKW  eV  Tip  t^dofxtfi  Kovon'  Ta 
6V  ToTy  ^i^XfAots-  creo'fjMf'd'M^'''*  v<rTfpov  ipovtuv'  to  Xdpvfidt^ 
Kat  "^dpStf'  TavTa  yup  ovk  eKXiBtja-av  ^td  tov  ^09  ^m  t^i* 
eiraWrjKiav  tov  5*  xai  to  o"«cj;'>//is  CTrtiTKe^/'K  Aaj^ecis  ISewe<y*s*' 
Tai/Ta  *ya^  ofioifpwvtjaaVTa  irpoatfyopucoi^  0i/Xi/kois  ti/i'  Twy 
irpotXTiyoptKmv  kXiViv  areoe^ai'To*  *rai  to  Hoiy  icai  A^<c)(f'  rai 
Sail?  K€u  TafiiaOti'  TavTa  yap  AiyvirTta  ovto  Ka\  JcXirocTai 
Ctd  TOV  d  to  yap  'AtyvTrrta  tov  fTri  to  irXeio'Toi'  cid  Kadapov 
TOV  ui  KXivovTai  otov   KaXXixoXi?   KaXXfiroXews'* 

Atari  fiij  K\ivwfi.€v  ■jroXiy  7roX»;o5  otd  rou  r);  cwei^jj  ci 
ytyouev  uvTtMK  fup't<jKiTai  r}  trapaXtjyova'a  t»;?  7rfj0tTToo"yXXa- 
^0  yefiK^  iiei^^wv  Ttj^  XrjyoucTfK  Tns  t<>ias  evOda^  owep  utowov* 
Kat  inof  ffXirerai  irapd  r^  xoitjr^ 

ax  ay pov  vo(T<pi  iroXiyot 
Old  TOW  ^  kXi^cV;  ttrTeov  ce  on  owroj  to  ToXijop  ov«  €0"Tir 
ItffovtKov  oXX'  dwo  ToP  TToXios  **  TOu  OKX  TO  I  ycyovs  KaTa 
Tpomjv  TOV  t  eiy  ^  wv  a?ro  row   a^tfxv0rjov**. 

Aiart  direXiTre  t^J  'Attijc^s"   twi*  ivtKoiv  tj  j^^tris  r^y  o' 

«  MS.  «.  «  MS.  t)  z»i;fK  Ttjv  z«<;f<3M. 

•*  Xa'xovirtv  *  »f^«fK,  •  MS,  troit.  •*  MS.  VoX^'o*. 

'^  ChirrabcMc  Buklier.  Anecd.  p.  1193.   tit  iwl  roi  ipififiiStcp  pntiv^tev. 
**  V.  nje  alriaTiK'jc. 


ta 


jiftfcdota  Baroe^ana. 


oiov  TOF  a<Peot*  eirei6ri  Travra  to.  tis  is  Xtjyoirra  Sia  Ka9apov  Toy 
09  KXtvofieva  cis   p  fiowov  c^ovcti  Ttjv  a'lTiaTiKtji'. 

^tarl  TO  eU  <voi  -ircpttTiraTtu ;  eTTCioi)  ta  ciy  cr  XT/'yoi'ra 
QVOfuxra  KOivoKcK'Toviieva  e-^avra  ouocrepov  TrapacT^ijfi.aTi(Tfiov 
diro(TTpe<povTat  Trjv  o^eiav  Tacrtv. 

dtoTi  TO  fty  fKO?  ou  icXiVeTflic  oia  Tov  vt  KQTa  ninrjatv  Twy 
ovo€T€pit)V  e.'^ovTwv  \  etTEidif  oatrvveTai  ij  evOtta'  e'l  6e  eyevero 
ri  yevtK^  tvTos  e/ieWe  yj/iXovtrOat  i;  tvBeta'  to  yap  €  KaTO- 
Xtfyov  61?  V  ciritpepotieyov  aof^ff>u)vou  t^s  Tpittji  trv^^vy'ta^  Ttov 
papvTouoiVt  Kut  tv  pi'ifjLaTi  hi'itc  ewipp^uuTi  '^|f^Xov(JOa^  BeXet 
otov  evcov  Ev9a  eyro^'   tovtov  "Xf^ptv  aive^ake  tA  t  K(tt  eycveTo 

CTOf. 

rioffaj^wy  kXirerai  to  eU  €v^  OfOfxaTa'j  e^a^w^'  Kklverai 
yap  KOtv(Oi  Ota  tou  eo  otov  Aj^tXXeos'*'  Kal  eta  too  etv  Attikos 
oior'A^iAAcaJS*  KXivcTcu  5e  cia  tov  ij  {kui  o)  irapd  Totv  'A^^aiols, 
loiKTi,  Kat  AtoXevfftv'  oiov  A^tXX^ov'  aXXd  Kal  AtoXetv  ■7rf)0- 
trapoquvovaf  KXiVcrai  oe  xut  via  tov  to  rrapa  Toif;  IJ(kwto7k* 
rXiVcTni  oe  xai  otd  t^h  ev  ot<pQoyyov  wapd  Tot^  Aw^ieCcri 
Kai  ToiK   lattTi'  otov  Aj^iXXeu?  Trtptaw^tttfievto^  avTt  tov  A^iXXguj?. 

Kaxa  iroiav  cidXexTov  yiveTat  to  Zei)f  Aios  ;  *caTo  Botu- 
Tofc*  JcXitvrai  ce  xaj  oia  tov  w  ou^  wi  vo/nttcvat  tii^V  airo 
Tijs  toias  et/dcioES  Ketfxeyrjt  irapd*** 

The  same  Baroccian  MS.  contains  also  the  following  un- 
edited ^ammatical  Scholia,  f.  i54. 

Ni)^,  n/^ov  KUTa  TOV  xavova'  oti  Ta  eU  vv^  X^yovra 
otHtfiuTQ  airo  ptfiuaTwv  ^cXXoftiui*  ytvofieva  KOTa  a7ro/3oX»)v 
TOU  (5  ey^ovtxiy  ev  Tti  TtXein*^  t^s  yevtin}^  to  avf^pan/ov  ttJv 
TeXevrala^  ffi/XXa/3j5?'  rj  tov  eyepytjTiKov  irapaKvtftevou  CKetvov 
TOV  prjfiaTo^  a<p  ov  to  TotavTa  ovofxaTa  yeyove  Kat  fitTt^ 
j(oi/TflK  TO  TOU  eyepyrp-iKov  irapaKet/xevov  avfiKbovov'  ecrTw 
troi  irapd^ftyiua  to  trrv^  xtv^ot  o  drjXol  t^i^  Ovpav'  yiveTat 
ec  avo  TOU  irrvtrtrw  to  dtr(paXii^fo'  twi/  oe  e'^ovTWU  ^ovrrXt]^ 
povTrXiiyo^i'  kaTa  tovtov  ovv  tov  xavova  eKX*iOrj  Kal  w^ 
vv)(o9'  Xapovtra  KaTa  Ttfv  yevtKifv  to  tov  evepyrfTiKov  irapa- 
Keifi-evov  au$i<jiti)voy'   elxa   wXeovaaavTo^  tow  t  yeyove  wyrds' 

*^  MS.  'AxiAX«»t. 

'■  ChtfroboM.  Bekker.  Anecd.  p.  1194.  rmit  Si  jcaf  niV  di^  yt¥t€^v  dirA  ttj^  AU 
tti9tiat  BfKowt  Myfiir  -Hft  tlrpifftiiup  irapa  tm  VMptPt, 


49Q 


Anecdota  Baroc^iana. 


$ieT€^\i}9t}  TO  Saav  -^  eis  yj/iXov  k.  koI  yiyove  vvkto^.  "iva 
fcporjytiffTjTai  tqv  ^j/tXov  t  cTtpov  yj/ikof  k.  ofxoiov  ce  €<rTt  xai 

[To  atra^  avaKTOi'  ySyove  oe  citto  tow  amffffco  dyadic  airojSoXi} 
Tov  cti  avaf  o  ^(TiKevs,  Kai  xXiVet  ara;^os  aTro   tou  evefyytj- 

,  TiKoi'  irapaKet/xeyov  elra   TrXeovaffajTOT  roy   t  *.ai  TpoTTTJ  tov 

\j^  els   K  avoJCTOf   yeyovf. 

Kai'oi'icov  efKO)  to  Oe\tt>  Kat  to  viro-)^wpw  xai  viraTaatrofuu 

'  icat  f^Xtnw  Kai  ofioiw'  c!ffa»*  o  aopuTTos  eJ^a  o  Sevrepm  «T*ov* 
^  jucTo;;^!;  o  eicwv'  co^eiXe  '>l/tXoypa(piuaOar  aXX'  €<mi»  o 
jcartof  o  Xeyftn/,  to  «  -tt^o  toiI  ic  el  jur}  otto  XtfKTiK^s  enraffetoi 
fit}  6aavv€Tai,  oiuv  exas'  (Koiepyo^'  tKa<TTo^'  Ekottj  rf  trfXrjv^' 
mil  en  eiptfrai  ei  fx^  awo  Xi?«ctik^?  «KTacrca>£-  eirj^  ^id  to  exap- 
Tepiftxa'  e\etpa  ayrl  tov  €Koyj/a'  cirXfTrToi'*  eumvoTOMOvv'  ewoir- 
Tov  KOt  Ta  -rrupaTrXtjaia. 

Kapdia  «.  TO  awfioTiKoy  fioptov*  to  ^aOu  tov  cyCT^xxXoi* 
ws  TO  '*  oiOTi  avaXoyiaiuol  avix^alvooaiv  ^v  Taes  Kapctavi  vtJ.wv\ 
TifV  yj/v)(^rjy  OK  TO  Kapoiav  KuBapdv  kt'ioov  cV  eyuoi  w  0«oy **'^ 
Tijv  yvwfxtjv  w$-  TO,  17  KOpoia  avTwv  iroppw  dtre^ei  dtr  Cfiou** 
KOI  Ttiv  etwoictac  /rai  aptOKetav  toy  to  *'  €vpov  Aapio  toi'  toi? 
Ico'O'aJ  avcpa  Kara  Ttjv  Kapa'iuv  fxou, 

Btov   ?.   t»Jk  Tej^i^y   CUV   to  **  ^'tov  efitroptKOV  ^  tf)i\6<ro<Poit 

^^V'^    TOV    TpOTTOV    (OS    TO  *'  '^r}<TTOV    fi'tOV    CO^TI*"    TOi'   TTO^fTa 

KOfffiov,  TOV  tvos  CKtiffTou  ^ofo*-'  Ttjv  Ttjs  ^Oftjs  -Trepiovfftdi*' 
toi  TO  **  iroXiIs  rjv  avTM  jSioi'^  koI  Tat  irpos  to  ^^i*  avuTeivovtias 
Tpo^xis- 

Ta  "TTapd  TO  K£pas  teal  yepas  awriBt/iefa  dvo^aTa  Bid 
TOV  tt»  fjLoXXov  ypa<p€Tai  oion  euxepwi '"'  Ta  Trapa  to  yt/pas 
oToi'  cuytlpon'  iroXvy^pwi*  KaKoyTjpois'  JcXiVcTai  oe  kot  diro- 
(ioXi]if  TOV  <t'  awTaTTCTai  de  xai  Ta  napd  to  xpeo^  ffuy- 
Keifieva  eta  tov  w  fxeyaXov'  XP^°^  '/"/*  M^dvtj  dia  o  ntKpovy  Ta 
Cc  Trap  avTov  ptydXov'  otov  i/irdyp^oj^'  /foxo^etut'   a^io^^eAff. 

AioaVrtV  Ka\  TO  iradtfTiKov  diod(TKOfxat'  Ta  e'ls  kw  Xi;'yorTa 
pijMOTa  oca  epoe^eTcu  aifaoiTrX ao'iua^c  fxiXKovTa  ov  oiyj^rat. 


AiOV   O    CTfXfltfTO  ^OuXf]     (II.    A.   5.) 

icaj  Ttjv  9e\rt<Tiv 

GcTiioy  ^*  6f»Ji/i«7€  /3oi/Xa9  (II.  9.  370.) 

TleTTtMt  TO  ir'nTTto  aj^tjoTov^  Koi  iravTU  evepytfTtxa'  o 
fitWatv  ireatu'  xai  ^tvptKw^  Tretrio'  Kal  o  fietrtK  fieWo>f  tee* 
awfiai'   TTCff^'    Treaeirai 

I\€yw  on  €vpi)Tat  SeXtv  Kat  eBeXw  Ttav  airo  too  deXw 
yivcTat  o  •rrapaM£ifA€vo^  " Tedektjadai''  awo  trvfxdHnvoo  apyo- 
fievoi'  icai  TOW  ei/ecToiTa  ueXet  etryev  atro  aufxibwvov  apyo- 
fievov'  airo  oc  tov  eSeXta  TptiTuXXaf^oi/  ylvcTai  to  tjOfXa' 
fuf^ctv  ouv  oU(r9u)  y'tveaBm  to  BeX<t)  ttavXKajiov  airo  tov  eOeXuf' 
TpttrvXXa^ov,  afpaipeBevro^  tov  i'  to  €$eXw  te  fxaWov  airo 
TOV  $eXt»'  TOV  €  ir X«o»'a<Ta»'Tos  ivet  Kavtov  ecTiv  o  Xeytav'  to. 
«*S  (5  L^"*]  X^yovTa  prinara  tw  e  'TrapaXtfyoneva  v-jrep^ait'ot'Ta 
T7}U  diffuXXafi'tav  fi  fif}  Kal  erepoi-  X  TrporjyovfiEvof  tvf(,  vepux- 
navraC  otov  attheXto'  a.ueXw'  auyreXio'  et  oe  /ii;  virepf^aa'ovm 
Tijr  oKTvXXttfiiavy  pupvvoirrai'  oTov  OeXta'  /neXXw  Kal  to  oftwa. 

Ett!  Twf  ficyaXtov  irpoaayirayv  fd>  (t>y  edoKei  jiapu  to 
<t>av€piti%  wpooTaTTety  €-^^pa>vTO  o\  :\TTtKOi  evKTtKfp  fi^Ta  toD 
av  dip   VAipnrlcrj^  ev  Ttp  /3*    opufiftTt. 

KXi'cMs  uv  ^oifte  wpotrTUT^pte'^ 
avTi  ewaKove. 

""Ort  eifTt  vapaKeifi^voi  oixd'es  €irttTi}fi€tftHrtv  €vetTTwTwi' 
Xafi^tvovTut  U€t,  u/p  o  deriopjta'  oetiotKa'  ■7re(f>ptKn'  e'ttTi  de  fiXXoi 
diTtvei  ael  eirt  TrapeXtjXvOoTo^  XafifyavovTai'  (oy  to  ■jrcjroi'^a 
Kol  ireiroirjKa'  eitri  ce  Kat  aWoi  omjicv  cWotc  fiey  eirl  eVcff- 
toUtos  eif'toTe  <>e   enl  TrapeXjjXv&oTos. 

!AXXa  CfioTe  ftev  ovfiKXeKTiKov  \eyeTai  eirt  avatpeaet 
Tivm  Kat  trwTTaa^ei  cTepou'  otoi-  ovk  e<TTt  Tooe  aXXa  Tooe'  /cat 
ore  fid)  €T€piti  €T€pov  €Tray€Tai  foovfteyov  eTepa$  ayaipcaeoji' 
«OT(V  To^e»  ciXXa  kqI  To^e'  Kat  aTrXvk  ewt  twv  aXXtify  ytvo- 
fieifwv'  w?  c^ci  TO  '*  a(TT-ica,  <Ppvvov,  ofpiv  Ka\  AuOiKeds'  aXXci 
Ta?  irivaKita^!  adXio^  o  Aaotwtf?  e^fi  XajSttii'"'  evlore  ce  o 
aXXa  icTi  avXXoyuTTiKO^  Koi  XeyeTat  ctti  ^epatuxiet  ir/oa-y- 
MttTOff  (US  evTauOa  tow  2o(^«cXeoi/y  **aXX  »;  fiefitjva^ '^'^^  Kal 
aXXd  /iiji'  Tooc   ecTTii'. 

^>  The  qnouticiti  is  itom  the  Elcctift  of  8ophoda>  v.  637  Kkwn  iv  Hiii,  •»T^e 

T)  Thin  wemi  to  ba  *  qnotstion  ftom  Mae  comic  writer. 
'>  From  the  Electn,  v.  379. 
Vol,  II.    No.  5.  3  I 


I 


432 


Anecdota  Barocciana. 


Before  wc  restore  the  MS.  from  which  we  have  made 
the  above  extracts,  to  its  shelf,  wc  may  observe  that  it  has 
other  excerpta  from  Herodian,  (fol.  S55.)  on  the  declensions 
of  nouns  and  the  conjugations  of  verbs ;  the  same  which 
I'rofessor  Hermann  ha^  published  in  his  Rat.  Kniend.  Gr. 
and  wliich  we  know  from  Baridini^s  Catalogue  to  exist  in  the 
Florence  Library.  Fol,  310.  Kafo'i'^  appepixwv  kuI  OtjXvKwv 
Kat  ov6eT€puti'  ovoftuTtov  ex  twv  tov  AnoWwviov  Kat  erepwv 
<rod>i^v  (Tt/XXe^deKTCf.  These  appear  to  be  extracts  from  the 
Etymologicon  M.  They  Iwgin  with  the  words  'A/JX^ra. 
*j\'yoi'.  ''Aytj.  'Ayvta  ''Ayj^t.  'A^oXco^i/e.  &:c.  the  last  in  the 
letter  A  is  a-^k.  The  lirst  in  B  is  BaXapciov  which  word 
IB  very  diflerent  from  that  in  the  Etym.  M.  The  extracts 
conclude  with  BcXXepo^oi'T^y.  Fol.  342.  Phrynichus  Eclog. 
^ptivi^oti  Kopvr}\tav^  ev  nparreiv  cKourtjif  ov  vjor/  XeyeiVj  and 
endinj^  with  uiyf'^aXQJTia^Tjvui  Toi/d*  oi/rux  avoKi/xov  a/(  fiijce 
^lefavtipov  avToi  ^ti<Ta<rBai'  ciaXvwv  ovv  Xeye  a't^naXtoTOi 
yeveaBcu'*'  Fol.  272-  A  small  portion  of  the  Lexicon  of 
Harpocration,  Ijcginning  with  "A^api^  and  ending  with  "Akc- 
^^aiTio-e.  Fol.  'JH.  We  have  the  iniBrj  Xefew?  'Yp\/(pwvo^. 
Fol.  247*  €Tfpa  iraOrj  Xefewj  and  Fol.  218.  tow  Tpu<fHuyoi 
vept  Tpoirwfy  which  latter  treatise  is  very  different  from  that 
published  under  the  same  graininariaii''s  name  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  Cambridge  Museum  Criticum ;  and  subse- 
quently under  the  title  of  Anonym!  de  TropJs,  by  Passow  and 
Schneider  in  the  Museum  Criticum  Vralislaviense  1825.  The 
following  extracts  will  serve  to  shew  this. 
ToiJ  Tpi/^o'i'o?  irepi  Tpoirwv 

Tov  Xoyov  6(P  etctj  fifpti^o^ievov,  to  fiev  €<TTt  KupioXoyia, 
TO  ^  TpOTroi'  KvpioXoyia  fi€v  ovv  eoTiv,  i]  rwv  Kara  tpvatv 
Xe'f  ewi'  Terir^i/ta  <PpdtTK '  to  re  yap  o'lKeias  wprxTfbepotTo 
av  Tts  orav  firj  TrapaTpatrt)  tou  Kvpitav  Xeyofuvou'  oiov'  ttu^ 
fiev  iv'iKTfaa    I^ikXov   de   -n-ooecrff*   trapeopafiov  etrOXov   eovra. 

"  The  Buoccian  M8.  159  contains  Ktuotig  other  extracts  ftmn  Phrrnlchiu  the 
two  foUowuHf  gloMca  which  do  not  appear  in  the  printed  editioni.  Ilairwpfft'  rA 
difffidr-  pirrw  \iyoiMitv  Alyiirrioi'  tj^im  ii  fti^Xon  ipoiittw  UBiu  kbI  fivfii\o»t  tvv 
ypoiptiii  Xtyofuu  vri  wftArou  fufitft^i/at  -roift  X"!**^^  i'  ▼*«  ■watrvp^iv  typa^otf  ol 
itaXautl. 

liuptA'  TovTo  Tdwovnf  111  irvXXol  ^1  Tnr  J*  tm  ^aXavtUf  irviXoy-  *x"  ^  '"1'* 
i-rvtieXoylAv  dwi  too  wvpovvQa^  dAA'  ovk  irrt  ioKtfior,  irvi\ov9  ydfi  oi  'Att*ii,-«1  ««- 
Xovcu*  dW  ai  «vpl«i. 


Anecdota  Barocdana. 

TpoTTOS'  ^  effT*  \t^€on  <ppacK  eic  ti/v  kqO  tavTtju  otrwK 
ovy  ictortjTw  fieraTpoTri^v  e'tXtjKputa'  cio  Kat  t^ottos  KaXcirat* 
•TrapeiXrj-a-Tat  ce  tjToi  ^pf'ta^  ei-eKa  rj  Ko<TfJLOU  irept  ttjv  <pp<i<Ttv' 
Tpoirot  oe  tictv  e'tKotri  ef*  AWtjyopta'  Meraipopa'  Kaxn- 
^pTjaiV  MeTa\»^>^is'  \7reppaTov'  Ava(iTpo<bi)'  ^vveKCoyt^' 
OvotxaTo-Koua.'  MeTftij'i'^ia'  Vlepifppaem'  TIXeofuaMot:'  Hajon- 
9rXi7/M>/ua'  KXXffi%|/-is'  'Xvep^oXt}'  'Etpofeia-  "SxtpKatTMW'  'Ag- 
Tt'ifffioi '  A  vTi(ppa<Ti^ '  EvavTittifft^'  AvTajvoixaffta'  ' A/ifpi^Xia' 
2uXX»;x//^is'  A'iviyfia'    Kirav^tftri^'   '^^'^X*'"  '^ '^'^^P^^oyia. 

'AWtjyopta  €7Ti  tppaaiv  trepov  piv  to*  ^tiKoutra'  erepw 
oe  evvoiav  traptuTuKra'  t6t€  oe  xara-^^pwin-ai  deovTO)^  t^ 
AWrjyopia'  orav  i;  dt  euXa^eiav  i/  0/  a'la^^vi'tjv  ou  ouvutvTat 
<Pavcpw  aTrayyeiXai'  6v  Tpoirov  wapa  KaXXtfAa-^ip  ev  la/u- 
/3oi?"  TO  irvp  oTT^p  treKaorra?  7roXX»;i'  irpoatD  Ke^prjKE  ipiXoya' 
Iff^e  iJe  opofxov  papyovi'Tm  "tTTTrovi'  Tavra  yap  ov  Kvpiw^ 
tiptfTai'  ov  TTvpoi'  au  ot*  iirirovpofiio^  **(ttii/  o  Xo'yoy,  aXX 
wurrep  a\covfi€Vos   tKot/Xdn?  i/XXa^e  T7/ii  LTre^^oX^Ji'    t^s    flysa- 

It  appears  from  the  notes  to  Bp  Blomficld's  CaUimachus, 
that  the  I^cydcn  MS.  from  which  he  gives  the  nbove  fragment 
nearly  agrees  with  the  Baroccian  ■*.  Omitting  the  sections  on 
Metaphor,  C'atacliresis  and  MctalcpsiR,  the  examples  of  which 
are  almost  all  taken  from  Homer,  though  diflerent  from  those 
of  the  Cambridge  MS.,  I  pass  on  to  the  Hypcrbaton  for  the 
sake  of  the  quotation  from  Simonidcs. 

Yweo^QToy  cffxi  <ppa<Ti^  avati€<Tov  tmv  e^^i  f^ouffa, 
yiverai  ce  ra  vtrep^aTOf  ev  elcetrt  evaiv'  etre  ev  Xt^ei  oiov' 
vav-nj  irepWpo^o^  opwpet  9e(T7ncat-<;^  Trvp,  Xaivov  ^  to  yap 
egijv  ot/T(oi  *X^**  ''^a^^V  yp  irepiTpoyov  optvpct  Beciricat^ 
nrvp  Xuivov'  e<TTi  ce  Kat  ev  auvOtroK  Xe^eatv  'Yxf^/3aTa 
ytvo/itva'  otov 

^t'firtoty  01  tiaTo.  /Jofs  'Yir€ptovoi   HeXi'ofo 
"i^aetovi  (Od.  A.  8.) 
tUfTi  Tov  KaTtfaOtov'  to  ce  ev  Xoyoj  yivofieva  e^e*  ovtw  irap' 
OfiVptv. 

'*  Th*  Ltjden  MS.  rcadi  p«^  n  for  /kWoi  -,  iCv^tr-rai  for  ^.uiwirrni ;  irfM^uKt. 
X/»i*:«  tot  -rpoo-oj  Ktxp^t'  ',  fiapyaipros  Tirirou  for  fiapryovirnit  Vv-iroM  ;  •«Ti  X»y»*  fm 
jvrtv  o  \6yot :  iK6T\\ow  'l^ryt*  for  itHkan  q\A«£(. 


I 


I 


9ta  Sarorciana. 

'ili  €<f>aT'  'Apyelot  5«  /ley  "ia^ov,  af^pl  ce  vije^ 
^4*cpSciKeoy  KOi'aprjtratf  avaavToyv  w  Ayattov 
MuOov  eiraivrjtrayTes-  'Oowrtr^o^  Sctoio.     (II.  B.  333.) 

TO   yop  ffglff  o*Ta»9    a-TTOciCorat     fa>y    ewaT    Apyeiot  09  M*Y 
M^ov    nvOof    €iratv/}(TavT€^.  Eftoi    de    Kal    ev    cruXXajSais 

'\vfpliaTa   irerroti^Kaijiv'   (u?   Kal  ^fxa>ytotj^   ev   einypatxixctxTiv. 

"'E^jU^V   TOVO    avtQt^K€  AlJftTJTpiO^  OpStO  6     OVK  €V    TTpodvpOti^^^ 
aVTt  TOO  OVK  Op0Ul  Of. 

A'iviyfxa  eoTt  <PpanK  ctdvotav  nTroKeKpvfifxeyrjv  koi  avv~ 
derov  7r€tpa)fi€vTj  iroiuv  w?  to.  jrap'  'Hciuinff  irapd  [TTf^ij  T^p 
KvXiKOi  Xeyofieva 

vrap  ewei  oaiTtK  p-ev  etdrfv  e^  epov  evTo 
olov  **  oy  fiijTepa  firjrpvs  uyovTo  a^oAeiyi/  »cai  oirraXctju'^  eml 
ooK€t  irpwrov  n«v  ^T}paive(r9ai  ecra  OTTTcurOai*  e  <p  erepoitri 
TCKCa"*  Toii  eauTov  Tenvoi^*  Xe'^yf*  o*  To<y  ^evnn'  \fu\otfj  to 
de  T^Qfovat  KaOu  tioxei  ck  Ttjs  vXrj^  eKKfKo<p6ai^  Tliis  frag- 
ment without  the  aid  of  the  Leyden  or  other  MSS.  mu&t  I 
fear  recQaiD  io  every  sense  of  the  word  aii  enigiiift. 


I.  A.  a 


^^  The  quoutioD  ought  MRiiiugly  to  stand  thus ; 


ON  ANCIENT  GREEK  MUSIC. 


It  is  perhaps  not  far  from  correct  to  say,  that  Greece, 
M  in  many  other  points,  so  especially  in  the  arts,  was  set 
forth  as  a  pattern  to  mankind.  For  in  no  country  has  the 
love  of  beauty  been  so  extensively  predominant,  or  the  true 
principles  of  art  so  generally  exemplified ;  and  here  first  in 
the  history  of  tlie  world  sprung  up  those  germs  of  excellence 
in  all  tliat  enuobles  and  rctincs  our  nature,  which  the  great 
spirits  of  succeeding  ages  have  ever  been  employed  in  deve- 
loping. And  as  iu  the  first  birth  of  uVL'ry  thing  else,  so  here 
also,  there  is  a  peculiar  beauty  to  which  no  aft^^r  Imitation 
can  attain :  and  a  nntive  charm  that  may  never  be  renewed. 
We  have  built  upon  the  foundations  which  wei«  then  laid, 
and  have  raised  &ome  goodly  structures :  but  I  think  we  have 
found  that  the  nearer  we  approach  the  primitive  and  severe 
magnificence,  the  nearer  we  also  approach  true  principles  of 
art — that  in  proportion  as  we  strictly  and  religiously  adhere 
to  the  old  patterns  and  rules,  just  in  that  proportion  wc 
attain  to  the  stature  of  the  ancient  worthies  by  whom  those 
patterns  were  given ;  and  succeed  in  imitating  the  simple 
beauty  and  fitness  of  the  masterwurks  from  whicli  those  rules 
were  formed. 

Now  in  almost  all  the  arts  this  has  tx^en  attempted,  and 
with  various  success.  The  success  has  been  various  because 
tlie  proper  course  has  not  been  always  undcviatingly  pursued : 
and  because  the  materials,  and  likewise  the  genius  of  the 
artists,  have  been  various.  In  some  arts  also  the  attempt 
has  been  carried  further  than  in  others,  according  as  the 
peculiar  nature  of  each  seemed  to  admit  it.  And  I  think  I 
may  safely  say  that  those  arts  which  have  been  most,  and 
most  successfully  followed  up  in  this  way,  Ixave  been  the 
most  prolific  iu  masterworks  of  l>eauty.  The  artist  has 
taken    his  stand   upon    the   ancient    and    excellent    simpUcity, 


436 


Of»  Aticietii  Greek  Mune. 


aod  from  thence  as  a  starting-post  has  followed  tlie  dictates 
of  his  genius.  And  one  of  the  great  advnntageA  of  this  is, 
that  he  is  rendered  independent  of  all  thnsn  circumstances 
whicli  have  at  vanniis  periods  tended  to  corrupt  and  deprave 
his  art:  he  does  not  view  it  through  the  medium  of  these, 
but  goes  to  its  best  and  purest  development,  and  learns  it 
there.  Now  I  find  that  of  all  the  arts  music  is  the  one  which 
baa  been  least  treated  in  this  spirit.  When  this  first  struck 
me,  I  naturally  became  anxious  to  enijuire  whether  it  had 
arisen  from  any  thing  inherent  in  the  art  itself  which  has 
distinguished  it  from  others  in  unfitting  it  for  this  treat- 
ment, or  whether  it  l>e  not  from  some  culpable  and  unartist- 
lifcc  neglect  in  ourselves,  thnt  we  have  not  followed  in  our 
musical   studies  those  rules   by  which  all  other  art  is  guided. 

I  tliiuk  I  have  satisfied  myself  in  the  investigation,  which 
of  these  two  is  the  right  answer  as  far  as  the  ancient  Greek 
music  is  concerned.  In  order  to  satisfy  our  readers  also,  it 
will  be  uecessary  for  me  to  justify,  in  ihia  particular  branch 
of  art,  the  principles  which  I  have  laid  down  concerning  art 
in  general;  to  shew  that  this  is  of  the  same  kind  and  to 
be  treated  according  to  the  same  laws :  and  to  make  it  at  least 
probable  that  the  proficiency  of  the  ancient  Greeks  in  music 
was  such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  their  excellence 
in  the  other  arts. 

As  the  enquiry  whether  the  ancients  were  acquainted  with 
counterpoint,  i.  e.  playing  and  singing  in  parts,  closely  con- 
cerns my  present  subject,  I  hope  I  may  be  excused  if  I  enter 
somewhat  at  length  into  its  bearings,  and  endeavour  to  justify 
the  conclusion  at  which  I  have  myself  arrived. 

In  the  absence  of  any  treatifte  which  can  be  supposed  to 
lay  down  rules  for  playing  or  singing  in  parts,  the  advocates 
of  the  affirmative  side  of  the  question  have  grounded  their 
opinion  on  some  scattered  passages  which  seem  to  imply  a 
knowledge  of  counterpoint. 

One  of  the  moat  important  occurs  in  Plato  de  Legg. 
lib.  VII.  §  16. 

TovTwe  Toifvv  dtt  ^aptv  TOty  <pOoyyoi<:  Ttj^  Xi/yoay  tt/jos- 
yj>7faBai%  <Tatptjtr€ga%  eveha  twv  ^opcait',  t6v  T€  KiOapta'Ttjv  ttai 

tj^eyntuii'  T^¥  ei  ircpo^puivlnv  Ka\  iroiKiK'tav  T^  \vpas,  oAXa 


Oh  Ancieftt  Greek  Music.  437 

fiev  Mc^*}  TtSy  -^op^wv  Iciffiuc,  aX\a  5«  tou  xfj*-  /leXoiSiai/  ^o»- 
$€VT09  nottjTOV,  Kot  ^tj  Kai  iruKvoTtjTa  fiavoTtjTi  Koi  To'^o? 
jBpaduTifTi  xai  o^uTtjTa  fiupvTrjTt  ^vfKptvvov  Kat  apTitpayvou 
•napsyoftevov^j  Ka\  twv  pvdfiivu  wsaVTw^  travTooavd  trouciX- 
fiOTa  TTpo^apfiOTTovra^  Tolat  <p6(iyyoit  tj;?  \vpa^'  wavra 
ovu  Ttt  TotavTa  m'J  i^pw^p^peiv  roTs  ^tiWov(Tiv  ci*  TjoitrtV  erwi 
TO  T^s  MOVfTtv^  yjpticifiov  €K\rj-<lfea6at   eta  tot^oit. 

Now  in  order  to  understand  this  passage  it  will  be  ne- 
cessary to  ascertain  as  nearly  as  we  can,  the  precise  meaning 
of  the  terms  made  use  of  in  it.  erepodimvia  is  explained  by 
being  opposed  to  irpotiyopca  Ta  (pOtr^/fxctft*  toi?  (itf)eyfia<Tit 
and  clearly  indicates  that  the  sounds  of  the  voice  and  lyre 
were  different,  the  nature  of  which  difference  is  determined  by 
what  follows,  *'  the  strings  uttering  one  strain^  and  the  com- 
poser who  arranged  the  song  another :"  it  therefore  cannot  mean 
merely  the  repetition  of  the  same  strain  in  different  octaves. 
T-oiKiX'ia  is  explained  by  irvKyortj^,  "  frequency  of  notes'* 
sounding  together  with  fAavoTrjv,  '*  infrequency,"  i.  e.  the 
striking  of  notes  here  and  there  on  the  lyre  during  a  con- 
tinued strain  of  the  voice;  by  quick  notes  in  the  one  answer- 
ing to  slow  in  the  other,  and  high  notes  in  one  to  low  in  the 
other.  To  woiKtXia  also  are  referred  the  iravToSawa  woiK'tX- 
fxara  rail'  pvOfiwv,  "  all  sorts  of  subtle  combinations  uf  the 
cadences ' ;"  I  would  then  take  7rotKt\ia  to  include  all  the 
ornaments,  such  as  appogiaturas,  &c.  which  the  performer  on 
the  lyre  introduced  while  the  voice  f^ung  the  simple  strain. 

There  is  a  paper  on  this  passage  in  the  Histoire  de 
VAcademie  des  Inscriptions,  Vol.  lu.  p.  118,  by  M.  Burette, 
who  contends  that  what  we  call  counterpoint  is  not  intended 
here.  He  says  this  erepo^wvia  and  iroiKtXia  might  take 
place  in  four  ways ;  1.  By  the  performer  on  the  lyre  sounding 
the  same  strain  as  the  voice,  but  playing  in  a  flowery  and 
artificial  style.  3.  By  the  voice  singing  in  a  different  mode 
from  that  in  which  the  lyre  was  playing,  as  for  instance  the 
lyre  playing  in  the  Lydian  mode  and  the  voice  singing  in 
the  Dorian,  which  was  a  third  above.  3.  By  the  lyre  and 
Toioe  being  pitched    in    different  octaves^      I-.    By   the   voice 


'  fivBpMi  iiTTi  vu«Tff^a  iic  yp4tfmp  kotci  Tiim  ni^iv  vwyitf i^^rov.    AriftidM  Quin- 
tniutus,  lib.  I.  p.  31.  Ed.  Mclbom. 


A 


M8 


On  Ancient  Greek  Mu9ic. 


Bud  lyre  answering  one  another  alternatively,  either  with  the 
same  or  diiferent  strains,  as  in  uur  preludes,  ritorueUos,  aud 
rondos '. 

Now  with  resj>ect  to  the  first  of  these,  I  do  not  think 
the  distinctioa  which  Plato  makes  between  the  /*cXt;  will 
allow  it.  For  fic\o^  certainly  means  the  strain  or  air  of 
the  song,  which  Plato  Rays  was  different  in  the  lyric  and 
vocal  muaic,  but  which  M.  Burette's  first  supposition  uiakca 
to  be  the  same.  The  like  objection  applies  in  some  measure 
to  his  second  ;  for  altliough  the  lyre  and  voice  would  sound 
in  diH'ercnt  modes,  the  strains  would  be  essentially  the  same, 
by  which  sameness  of  strain  I  mean  that  the  notes  would 
be  Rvnchronous,  and  would  |>rocet<l  by  the  same  intervals. 
But  there  are  other  and  weightier  objections  to  it:  for  Mei- 
bomiua  (p.  36)  quotes  passages  which  fthew  that  "  not  onij 
did  not  the  ancients  employ  the  thirds  ami  sixths'  as  a  part 
of  their  antiplionia^  or  their  paraphunia,  but  that  even  so 
late  as  Bryennius  and  PscUus,  writers  of  the  middle  ages, 
they  had  not  come  into  use."  Now  as  a  concert  in  two 
modes,  one  a  third  above  the  other,  implies  both  these  con- 
cords, I  do  not  see  how  the  irepaipaivia  can  be  interpreted 
in  this  manner.  Of  his  third  hypothesis  I  have  disposed 
already.  His  fourth  may  undoubtedly  be  true,  but  it  is 
not  all  the  truth :  for  if  it  were,  what  doea  Plato  mean  by 
joining  l^vufhoivov  with  avTidiwvov''^ 

From  all  these  considerations  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
passage  must  be  interpreted  to  imply  sometliing  very  analo- 
gous to  our  counterpoint.     On  this  explanation  the  irvKvortj^ 

*  I  should  not  luve  noticed  M.  11urettf*»  supposttionn  kfter  Bumejr's  remarlu  on 
them  (Vol.  X.  pp.  137 — 1^^)  1i*<l  Qot  I  ™*b\  their  uniciuhlcnGM  in  a  somewhat  diflvrent 
light,  and  hail  not  some  TtiiatakeH  of  nnniey's  (an  for  example  thai  roipcctioif  i»Tl- 
tptofov  in  j>.  \43)  made  m«  dcftlroiti  to  reftiie  thtm  upon  what  I  coiuidend  more  corract 
l^ound*. 

'  pifXmitJTat  fiiv  ydp  tov  iui  T9rvdpttw  iXipma  iutrni/ta-ru  voXXs'i  JtW^MM  f*^*>- 

enus  Harmon,  p.  20.  Kd.  jVIeiboili. 

*  He  means  i«yin]ihnnia.     See  nnt«  .V 

■  Beaide*  whidi  M.  llureite  has  mintnken  the  meanbtfi  oi  dvrlipwov.  For  Arf»> 
IMle,  Prob.  XXXIX.  19,  safs  tA  ft'tti  dv^Tltptptroir  vafi^wov  km  &id  traaif'  in  waliwam 
yap,  v«W,  xal  dvcpMv  yivtTat  to  iVvTit/Hotov-  i.  c.  Aiitiphony  la  aymphotij,  hy  octave*  j 
for  tc  ariHes  fVom  (the  tiiiti|;led  voices  of)  children,  youths,  and  men.  So  thai  it  bore 
no  r«»cmbUnc«  to  the  antiphonin  of  the  Homi«h  charch  lervic*^  which  are  reapoosiTe 
■trains,  sung  alternately  by  the  print  and  the  people. 


On  Jncient  Greek  Music. 


439 


fiavoTtjTt^  Ta^os  i^padtrTtjrt^  and  o^uTtfv  fiafivTTfTt  fyM</x«"'Of 
KQt  avritpiiivov,  btrcuine  very  simple  of  explanation :  the  first 
alUiding  to  the  sounding  of  a  continuous  strain  by  one  part, 
while  another  struck  in  here  and  there  at  intervals;  the  se- 
cond and  third  to  the  sounding  of  a  long  fundamental  note 
in  one  part,  the  base  for  instance,  while  the  treble  uttered 
a  strain  of  quick  notes  iu  conscmaiice  to  it. 

Almost  all  the  other  passages  which  are  quoted  on  this 
side  of  the  question  may,  I  thinkj  be  satisfactorily  explained 
u{>on  the  supposition  that  the  performed  suug  and  played  in 
diH'ereiit  octaves ;  and  cannot  therefore  be  brought  to  bear 
on  either  side^ 

But  there  are  one  or  two  remarkable  expressions  in  the 
Problems  of  Aristotle  which  appear  to  me  decisive.  One  is 
in  the  problem  quoted  in  Note  5 : 

eta    TI    tlClOV    €<JTt    TO    ffVfUpWVOV     TOV     OfAOtptCfOV  i     Tf    Kat  TO 

fitv  atrrtdxovov,  (rvix<bwvo¥  etrxt  ^la  irfiowv'  ex  fraioaif  yop, 
vewif  Kttt  a»opw¥,  yiveTtu  ro  dvTtfpwyov'  o't  Oiearafft  to7^ 
Topois,  an  vrjTtf  -rrpo^  tijV  unarrjv.  avii<pwv'ta  ce  vatra,  r/oioii* 
dirXoii  (bOoyyou'  Si  d  oe  eiprjTaij  xai  Toyrwv  ij  iid  iraawv 
tjoiffnft 

Here  we  have  a  clear  distinction  betweeti  symphony  in 
general  and  that  by  octaves  in  particular  ;  and  because  that 
by  octaves  was  the  most  agreeable  of  all  symphonies,  lie  says 
that  the  ^a^a^is,  which  was  a  treble  instrument^  two  strings 
of  which  were  played  in  concert,  was  tuned  in  octaves  rather 
than  in  any  other  intervals. 

It  appears  then  that  the  consonances  of  the  Greeks  were 
confined  to  that  of  the  octaves  (to  Sid  irncroji')  that  of  the 
fifths  (to  Sid  Tfci/re)  and  that  of  the  fourths  (to  ^la  Tcortra- 
fjtav).  Now  all  musicians  know  that  two  consonances  of  fifths 
in   succession  are  intolerable  to  the  ear,  as   also  are  two  of 


1 


"  Such  Ktt  the  p«««iffta  of  Longlnusde  SubUm.  c  xxiv.i  thcUnesor  Horace, 
Son&iitc  nii»uini  libiLt  caniien  lyri 
Uic  Dotiuni^  lilts  Barbarum.  Eroo.  ix.  A. 

(the  Hyperphryfiunuid  IlypodarlanmMeii  boinf;  acuveit  to  oae  aootbcf ) ;  thepusAgn 
quoted  by  Sir  J.  Ukwkiiw  from  Ariuotle,  VoL  i.  p.  2KJ. 

novatttti  a  o£<>v  &fAa  vat  fJapM,  ^iiKfiotJv  t*  kaI  fipax'tt   t^Biyyout  ^ffayu,   ip 
Jia^opois  tfnumU  plat/  airrrc\4Viir  dfiH'<rla¥, 

Ka$9ittp   ik   iv   X^PV   Kopotpaiov  ncrdp^itirrvt,   oviWqx«t    «a«  i  X^P"*  aripiiii 
l«6*  j>T4   «al  yvmtttKtiv  in  ttnifn>(>nt\  <^Mt>«i«  i^itTtpatt  ki)  finfm^ipatr  ftlmp. 

Vol.  n,  No,  ■..  •:  K 


Om 


Gndk  Mm 


the  e&ct  of  dK  k 
df  thefamcr.     The 
cnthre  fifths  or  foardu  ia  « 
in  the  wmy  of  a  ■■«■■*•  I 

How  itDperfecC  Aea  sniit  that 


<  would  be  a  gnat  bar 

Dj  hsve  been,  wbidi 
forbid- 


oiisg  only  the«e  consooaifton  bead«a  tfar  octaTc, 
den  by  a  oorrect  car  to  Oiploj  eilbcr  of  ihrai  t«in:  «uooe»> 
Mrdr;  and  how  itin  nxm  imperfect  that  which  ia  defiance 
of  the  dictates  of  the  natural  ear,  p^yed  strstos  m  ooqmcu- 
live  fourths  and  fifths.  Weil  indeed  night  Aiiitotle  eoquire 
(Prob.  XIX.  I  16)  ^  ri  ^d«w  to  vrj^mor  (syBpHooy  bj 
octaves),  tov  frv/t<pmpov  (sjmphonj  hj  fourths  and  fifths), 
wUcbener  of  the  two  last-mentioaed  BMtbods  of  ooocert  their 
lianBumstt  adoptML 

It  seems  then  pretty  erident  that  we  are  not  to  look  for 
the  skill  of  the  Greeks,  or  the  effiects  reocatled  of  their  music, 
in  counterpoint,  or  the  miogUng  of  ^-otlsniMiBt  sounds,  but 
in  the  themes  or  airs  of  niusica]  passages.  And  I  find  that 
it  is  to  these  that  the  attention  is  principally  directed  in  their 
musical  treatises. 

While  QKxiem  notions  of  proficiency  are  almost  wholljr 
confined  to  the  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  harmony,  the  ancient 
musicians  studied  rather  how  tu  become  masters  of  musical 
sentiment  and  expression.  Which  of  these  two  is  the  true 
artist-like  method  of  cultivating  music  I  need  hardly  enqui^e^ 
That  both  ought  to  unite  in  an  excellent  musician,  of  course 


1 


*  Thmt  the  mtexattm  naJlf  did  tOBaOet  die  tulOeel  io  tlib  way  vUI  •pp**'  ^T  ^ 
foUowiii|[  quotMiom  fmn  AriftioxenBa  ;  Hannonic,  p.  38. 

o»  yap  iri  iripat  Tni  dpfutnrii*  hrimffiij^  tv^'m  f)  «v/>affif^>-runj,  JWd  sMi 
ftdf^l  MUm.  tl  ft^  Hal  Tift  /tfrpiK^t,  -ri  ypji^aa^ai  -rtioW  utrpmp  f  •a^rrdi-.  *  I  f  A- 
9tfi  hwi  Tit^-ntw  &tnt  dmryKatM'  ta-ruf,  -riv  iwdftwiw^  ypdipavtai  to  lo^i^^v,  «St«c 
!]("  «u>l  ^i  Ttfr  fM\4fivvfUvmii.  «£  yap  dpaynalov  ivn  tow  ypaijrdHrrov  t4  ^piytof 
ftdXon,  Ka\  4lNvai  ri  im  tA  tppvyiov  fLtXcn, 

And  p.  40,  tpcahinff  of  penou  who  beld  v«^hi*  -riiv  apuaimc^*  ivtmintit  «Tvai  Tifv 
'Wiipatnti*ap^ue*iv,  siler  having  Mid  th«i  If  they  hdd  it  ttiToogh  Ignonncci,  thsl  igno. 
mtce  jauMi  be  Irrx^vpti  tit  mal  firydXij,  he  kdds : 

»1  li  •rvvopwirrei  9ti  ovk  tvri  tA  rapaininaivetiOat  -ripax  -r^t  *^pq^<in|t  iria-ni- 
f"I*i    X""Wf"">i    di    T0i<    liiiiTait,     Kal     -wtiptmfiawoi     dwoSiAormi     i^» 

tl'r<rwiav  rou   Tp^ow  t^a-raywoltiv,  trptitifw  f»ip,  Sri  Kpfnir  eJomn  itiv  Ao^atrvtva- 
Xtif  rtiv  i*.<mj^iir  -riy  Uittrvr.    k.t.X. 

Tiie  wiHrie  of  ihia  p»n  of  ihe  tmtl»e  i*  rety  inicmttng.  S«  »1wp  on  thu  tul^ect 
Sir  Jothus  Reynolds,  Dlac.  tv.  p.  49.  (8hvpe*ft  «Iit.) 


On  Attcient  Greek  Mutic, 


m 


I  do  not  deny :  but  surely  the  results  of  the  one  course  of 
study  arc  mean  and  insif^nificant  when  compared  with  those 
of  the  other;  antl  this  will  more  eK|>ecially  appear  if  we  con- 
kider,  that  the  effects  produced  on  those  who  hear  astonishing 
specimens  of  harmonicat  skill  tend  universally  to  produce 
admiration  of  tlie  composer ;  whereas  in  listening  to  beau- 
tifui  strains,  we  forgtat  the  artist,  and  are  acted  on  by  the 
admiration  of  beauty — to  accomplish  which  is  the  true  end 
of  all  art.  The  musician  in  the  former  case  seems  to  me  to 
resemble  a  sculptor,  who,  because  the  position  of  every  statue 
must  ai^ec  with  the  laws  of  statical  equilibrium,  should  so 
frame  his  group  as  that  the  wonder  should  be  how  the  whole 
was  supported  ;  whereas  in  the  latter  case  the  artist  throws 
all  subordinate  things  into  the  background  (no  matter  how 
much  of  his  lalx)ur  and  bkill  may  be  thus  lost  on  bis  specta- 
tors), and  studies  to  make  beauty,  and  beauty  alone,  appear 
ID  his  performance. 

Let  us  then  examine  the  Grecian  music  in  this  point  of 
view. 

Of  the  effects  universally  ascribed  to  the  ancient  Greek 
music  it  will  be  needless  to  speak  at  any  length,  for  tliey  are 
well  known,  and  recorded  as  well  by  Judicious  and  sober  histo- 
rians' as  by  authors  who  might  have  been  iucHned  to  magnify 
Ihcm.  I  shall  therefore  content  myself  with  one  quotation 
from  the  remaining  musical  works  of  F.uclid,  which  tends  [)ar- 
licularly  to  sliew  of  what  nature  those  cH'ects  were,  and  how 
they  were  produced  ^ 


■  Bee  ei<pccui11y  the  digrewion  aa  the  C}>D«thcmin  ia  ihc  fuorth  book  nf  Polybioi. 

*  Out  of  about  thirtj  (ircek  muilcal  trcntues  cnum>r«tol  bjr  Ftbrlcius,  onljr  soven 
have  come  down  (o  us.  Among  theae,  ii  ta  true,  ve  have  tKree  of  rlie  prinripal  and 
niOHt  vjtliied ;  thai  of  Ariiloiciiiiii,  a  dincijile  of  ArtKotle,  lh»t  »f  EucHil  the  gMinieler, 
and  ihatof  Nicomachtin  the  Pyihagor«an.  The  Hnt  [>mon  who  oollectml  the»e  very 
Taluablc  works,  and  brought  their  text  to  a  readable  degree  of  purity,  wat  the  Itanied 
Meibooiius,  who  tlourishcd  ui  Sweden  in  [he  middle  of  the  l/ih  ceiUury. 

The  openiDg  of  Meibomius'a  preface  (a  worth  (luotin^;: 

'*  I  have  endeavoured  to  restore  in  these  autbon  the  ancient  tnutilf,  whidi  (rtnn  1u 
very  name  and  ita  antiquity  deterre*  our  venemtiim.  Whoever  admiren  the  profcund 
contemplaliou  of  the  ancient*  and  their  divbie  inventioiifi  in  the  other  arta,  may  here 
look  for  new  iipecimcns  of  the  tame.  I  am  well  awacc  that  ilie  very  title  of  my  work 
will  deter  from  the  peruial  the  common  herd  of  iiiuniccann,  who  seek  not  ancient  aulhan 
on  mu*ic,  but  new  ones :  aitd  find,  in  mnth,  enough  of  thrm — enough  patchen  (ogcthrr 
of  new-fangled  cTTon  and  monstHMW  opinions — which  particularly  appear^  when  they 


44A  On  Ancieni  Greek  Muaie. 

Euclid  hfts  left  two  inut>icfil  treatises,  one  on  Harmonics,] 
the  other  on  the  Canon.  Both  these  arc  characteristic  of  tlie 
author  of  the  Elements ;  with  however  this  difference — that 
the  purely  mathematical  nature  of  the  Elements  kept  out  of  jj 
view  any  prominent  marks  of  an  individual  mind,  whereas 
in  these  treatises  we  see  things  subjected  to  the  rule  of  system- 
atized opinion — concenicd  indeed  with  definitions  and  axioms 
and  postulates,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  less  precise 
and  restricted  than  the  Elements.  The  following 
occurs  in  the  Harmonics: 

Kara    ae   ti€\oTToitav    ytv^Tai    fteTa^fXt),    orav   ex    oiatT' 

tjtTtryafTTtKov  eis  Tt  Ttov  Xoiwaiv  17  /*rra/3oXi7  yevtfTai.  iiTTt 
C€  otaaraXTtKov  /nif  'yecos  /xeKfyjrotia^ ,  ct  ou  atifxaivtTai 
jLte-yaXoirpcxcia  Kal  oiap/ia  >pvy^^^  avopiodev,  tat  wpa^eis  fjpw'i' 
Kaij  Kat  TraOrf  tovtois  o'tKeia.  ^^Ta*  6c  toutoi^  fiaXttTTa  /leo 
y  Tfiaytpdiaf  Kal  TtJav  Xonrwv  ce  oaa  tovtou  e^^xm  tov 
')(apatrrnpo^~  awTTaXTtKov  oe,  o*  ov  trvvayeTOi  ^  ^*'X''  '*'* 
TaTreit'OTTjra  Koi  uyavopov  oiaOetrtv.  ap/ioaet  ct  to  -rotovToP 
KaTaaTrjtxa  Tdi<t  efjtvTiKoTi  -iraOnjt  naX  dptjvoKy  koi  otKToii  xat 
ToTs  irapa ttX rjcriots .  ^v^aaTtKov  oe  rjBoi  6ffTi  neXotroitQi, 
tp  vaperrerai  tipe/ioTiji  "^i/y^?,  unl  KaTaTTtjfta  eXevOeptov  re 
Kal  eiptfvtKov.  apfxo<rov<Ti  be  aurtja  vfitfOt,  iratave^j  e'y/cw^Q, 
avjuL^ovXalt  xal  Tti  tovtoi^  ofioia.   p.  21.  Ed.  Meibom. 

Now  this  passage,  coming  as  it  does  from  a  book  which 
is  not  speculative  or  fanciful  but  purely  scientific,  shews  I 
think  very  plainly  in 'what  way  the  art  of  music  was  at  that 
time  studied,  and  what  were  the  effects  attributed  to  it  by 
men  who  were  not  fable-makers  or  compilers  of  marvellous 
stories,  but  close  and  judicious  reasoners. 

Now  if  any  one  should  suspuct  that  these  effects  and  the 
like  of  theui,  were  not  so  likely  to  be  produced  by  the  bare 
sounding  of  so  many  notes  which  were  exactly  alike  and  in 
unison,  as  by  the  interweaving  of  many  parts,  and  the 
mazing  and  dazzling  power  of  a  rich  system  of  harmonies, 
I  can  only  refer   him  to   the  times  when   such   effects   have 

act  ftbotii  explaining  the  vork  of  the  Kadmtn.  For  whpti  with  the  utmost  stretch  of 
Uierr  gcuiuK  they  cunnot  comprclictul  tlieiti,  tliey  caJl  thuii,  after  the  modem  ffe»hion, 
bwbBrJiuis.  And  il'  uiy  one  hujipcns  to  tKink  that  the  ancicntu  were  elcK^nt  nnd  well 
•killed  in  every  part  of  mu&fc,  he  is  accounted  by  them  Indesant,  and  a  fooUsh  cnthu- 
aiast  in  admiration  of  the  Oreekj."      '  '   ""    -    ' 


On  Ancient  Greek  Music. 


bccD  produced  on  liiniself,  and  iippual  to  liim  to  say  whether 
it  !ms  not  generally  been  by  old  and  simple  melodies : 
whether  the  poet  who  has  recorded  in  strains  that  never  can 
be  forgotten,  how  he  *'  won  his  bright  and  beauteous  bride,*' 
did  not  well  when  he 

**  played  a  soft  and  doleful  air 
And  sung  an  old  and  moving  story. 

An  old   rude  song*" '— 

I  would  ask  such  persons  whether  the  parts  of  pieces  of  music 
which  are  most  powerful  over  their  minds  are  not  those  in 
which  some  nir  is  brought  prominently  forward  which  takes 
hold  on  their  memories — and  whether  tho»e  strong  associ- 
ations, by  which  things  far  distant  and  various  arc  Ixiund 
fast  in  one,  are  not  called  forth  by  the  bare  hearing  of  (it 
may  be)  but  two  or  three  notes  of  the  nir,  in  which  the  con- 
necting spirit  lies.  I  think  they  cannot  deny  this :  and  if 
80  they  must  admit  that  tlie  powerful  agent  in  these  matters 
is  the  musical  sentiment,  and  not  (if  I  may  so  call  it)  the 
musical  machinery.  I  cannot  forbear  quoting  as  mighty 
outliority  in  those  points,  the  words  of  Alarcello,  one  of  the 
greatest  and  truest  musicians  that  the  world  has  seen.  He 
Bays,  in  the  preface  to  his  l*salms; 

"  With  regard  to  my  music,  it  is  adapted  to  a  subject 
which  reqjuires  principally  the  expression  of  the  words  and 
the  sentiments ;  hence  it  is  for  the  most  part  composed  for 
two  voices  only,  in  order  to  produce  more  happily  the  effect 
intended.  It  was  for  the  same  purpose,  and  to  move  the 
paii^sions  and  affections  only,  that  music  was  made  use  of  by 
the  ancients  in  unisons  simply*  particularly  by  tlie  Hebrews, 
Phoenicians  and  Greeks.  And  though  it  was  sung  by  many 
and  various  kinds  of  voices,  yet  till  the  time  of  Gnido  Are- 
tino,  who  lived  about  the  eleventh  century,  the  air  was  one 
and  the  same  through  all  the  parts;  sometimes  accompanied 
with  one  instrument,  sometimes  with  another;  which  sounded 
the  air  or  vocal  part  itself;  and  1>oth  tlie  vocal  and  instru- 
mental were  no  otherwise  diversified  than  by  taking  the  tone 
or  pitch  above  or  below;  it  should  be  also  observwl  that 
harmony,  wliich  is  understood  by  the  moilerns  to  imply  a 
various  mixture  of  voices  and  instruments,  was  anciently  no 
other  than  a  progression  of  sound.s,  various  indeed  in  res]iect 


444 


On  Ancient  Greek  Mittic. 


of  their  simple  or  compound   intervals,  yet  the  »ame  cond^ 
drrcd   in    unison.     Such    van   their    MeloptPia.      But   in   our 
days  the  car  being  accustomed  to  the  harmonic  arrangement 
of  many  parts,  the  attempts  to  approach  too  nearly  to  thatj 
most  happy  and  simple  melody  of  the  ancients  might  prove" 
no  less  difficult  than  dangerous,  it  was  therefore  judged  not 
improper  to  compose  for  two,  sometimes  for  three  and  four 
parts,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  following  volumes. 

"After  all,  it  must  be  confessed,  this  kind  of  composition^ 
which  may  be  rather  termed  an  ingenious  counterpoint  than 
natural  melody,  is  more  likely  to  excite  the  admiration  of 
the  learned  enquirer  who  examines  it  in  writing,  than  to 
affect  the  heart  and  move  the  passions  of  those  who  hear  it  i 
in  the  performance.  And  this  arises,  as  well  from  the  per- 
petual conflict  of  fugues  or  imitations  in  the  different  parta, 
as  from  the  multiplicity  of  mixed  harmonies  which  accom* 
pany  them  in  order  to  fill  and  complete  the  chorus;  and 
these  in  fact  are  not"^  real  harmonies,  according  to  the  unde- 
niable geometric  and  arithmetical  experiments  made  by  the 
ancient  Greek  philosophers,  who  have  discovered  a  profound 
skill  in  investigating  whatever  \s  truly  excellent  in  this 
science.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  most  certain  that  during 
a  long  series  of  time  new  laws  both  in  theory  and  practice 
were  continually  added ;  to  which  at  this  time  we  must 
entirely  submit,  although  far  different  from  those  ancient  rules 
which  produced  in  their  music  those  marvellous  effects  fully 
attested  by  historians  both  sacred  and  profane;  who  inform 
us  likewise  of  the  magnificent  uses  and  sacred  purposes  to 
wliich  it  was  applied. 

"  Those  who  imagine  that  simplicity  was  a  defect  in  the 
ancient  music  arc  greatly  deceived ;  since  it  was  in  fact  one 
of  its  noblest  perfections.  It  cannot  indeed  be  doubted  that 
by  multiplying  instruments  and  voices  we  have  rendered  our 
compositions,  in  comparison  with  those  of  the  ancients,  full 
of  ornament  and  beauty  of  another  kind:  more  laboured,  by 
reason  of  the  many  subjects  of  which  they  are  composed; 
more  harmonious  by  the  diversity  of  voices  and  the  varioua 
combinations  of  concords   and    discords    which    must    neces- 


<«  i^  below,  not*  II. 


On  Ancieni  Greek  Music 


445 


sarily  follow  in  their  construction  ;  and  more  full  and  Bonoroufl 
by  the  many  different  instruments  united  in  concert  which 
accompany  them.  But  the  simple  and  unadorned  music 
of  the  ancients,  which  according  to  the  divine  Plato  consisted 
not  in  hannony  but  in  unisons,  did  produce  in  a  better  man- 
ner its  proper  effect  of  moving  the  passions :  for  the  philo- 
sopher judged  that  the  graces  and  affected  delicacies  of  har- 
mony enervated  and  broke  the  manliness  and  strength  of 
the  art ;  and  that  therefore  this  plain  and  simple  music  wa« 
more  agreeable  to  nature. 

'*  If  the  ancients,  as  it  is  said,  had  various  instruments 
and  various  kinds  of  voices  which  proceeded  according  to 
the  various  properties  of  their  systems  and  genera  (one  of 
whicli  genera'*,  the  most  powerful  to  excite  the  passions, 
and  the  must  perfect  ornament  of  them  all,  is  quite  lost  in 
the  present  harmonic  construction  of  music)  it  must  however 
be  supposed  that  their  songs,  voices,  and  instruments  did 
not  confound  the  words  or  perplex  the  Bense ;  and  though 
they  sung  in  a  numerous  chorus,  and  sometimes  in  hftrmony, 
yet  was  each  word  distinctly  pronounced  by  each  singer  at 
the  same  moment ;  nor  were  there  heard  any  confused  re- 
petitions in  vain  passages ;  every  interval  or  note,  in  its 
minutest  difference,  being  sensibly  felt  and  enjoyed ;  nor 
was  one  made  ever  mixed  with  another  but  with  the  utmost 
care   and   art,    lest    one    passion    might   be   raised    instead  of 


■'  AfarceUo  allades  to  the  Snharmonic,  which  ascended  and  dcscendcil  by  the 
intervul  of  a  tHetii  or  qouter-tone ;  «n  Iniervat  vhich  very  few  ears  □ow.ft.days  can 
diatiTifTuiah,  uid  do  voice  can  accurately  dWidc.  It  it  evideot  Cien  that  we  muftt  have 
loKt  much  of  the  distinctive  power  in  incloily  which  the  aiicienU  had ;  and  Lhis  appear* 
to  me  to  hftTe  been  occasioned  hy  accosloTnlng  our  earn  to  hear  wiih  complKCcncy 
chord*  which  contain  what  ouffht  to  be  tntoleiable  dixords.  iMy  muiiul  readers  will 
better  undcT«taiid  luy  meaniu^  by  an  example. 

In  the  cominon  chord  of  (',  we  have  Houttditiiit  toother  C,  E,  and  O.  Nov  as 
every  note  vibrate*,  togcthcT  with  itself,  tt«  twclfih  and  tieTenteenth,  we  have  tound- 
^K  toffether,  the  twelfth  and  mivcntecnth  of  C,  which  are  O  and  E  two  octaves  above ; 
those  of  K,  which  arc  B  and  ()  ^  likewiiic  two  ocuvot  above ;  and  those  of  O,  which  are 
U  and  B  likewise  two  nrtaveii  above.  Thus  we  have  in  the  fondaTnental  chord  of  C 
(he  following  intolerable  discord*;  O  and  U  ^  tofiretheT,  C  and  r>  toother,  D  and  E 
together  and  B  and  C  together.  I  hare  reco^iied  the  pmmct  of  (he  G  and  Q% 
frequently,  by  llflteniRg  intently  to  a  conunon  chord  on  an  organ. 

Ariatoxenus  says  of  thit  geniu  even  in  ancient  timeK, 

•  .  .  .  Tpirov^i  Kal  urtiTaroi/.  ^6  ivapnAvnyV  TtXtwraiif  ytifi  airr^  koX  fiSkiV 
Utrd  waXXov  -wivev  w\fKi9V[*rai  ij  nlotftitfir.  Har.  p.  19. 


446 


On  Ancient  Greek  Music, 


anoilier;     each    purticular   pussiou  huviiij^  its   proper   motlegj 
or  melixly,   assigned  to  it.      Now    wlioever  seriously  considers 
^faia   will   doiibtluss   own    that    all    theae   circumstances    must 
concur  to  pro<lucf  all  tlif?  great  effects  of  music;    namely,  to 
deliglu  the  ear,  affect  the  heart,  and  to  enliven  and  recreate  j 
the  mind. 

"  But  how  far  the  present  music  may  be  destitute  of  these 
powers,  either  by  the  introduction  of  new  laws,  or  perhaps 
by  our  negh'geuce  in  the  use  and  application  of  the  poweta 
thensselves,  may  be  easily  perceived,  when  its  real  effects 
are  compared  with  these  mentioned  above ;  for  though  it  is 
copioua  in  its  harmonies  and  pleasing  in  its  various  move- 
ments, yet  does  it  not  even  in  the  lowest  degree  produce  any 
of  the  effects  of  the  ancient  music. 

"This  upon  the  whole  is  certain,  that  since  those  happy 
days,  these  internal  passions  have  lieen  raised  and  still  are 
raised  by  music  ;  but  this  is  rather  the  cfl'ect  of  melody  than 
of  a  combined  and  full  harmony.  We  cannot  however  in 
any  case  exj)ect  these  effects  without  an  awakened  attention 
iu  the  hearer,  and  a  mind  free  from  tumultuous  and  unruly 
passions :  now  from  the  application  and  frequent  use  of  this 
excellent  cause,  we  may  clearly  derive  the  wonderful  effects 
of  ancient  music.  To  attain  tlic  same  end,  we  have  found 
it  neces.sary  to  use  the  same  means  in  our  present  labours, 
as  far  as  the  received  taste  of  our  times  would  allow  us. 
Tlius  much  may  be  said,  as  well  for  the  sake  of  truth,  as 
for  obtaining,  if  not  some  praise,  at  least  some  favourable 
excuse,  that  we  have  not  in  tliis  work  always  introduced 
the  present  fashionable  airy  style  (though  we  would  not  be 
thought  to  take  upon  us  to  reform  it;)  and  that  to  support 
in  some  measure  the  true  simplicity  and  manly  gravity  of 
the  ancient  style,  we  have  sometimes  transgressed  against 
the  elegancies  of  the  modern. 

**  Men's  prejudices  aguinst  music  do  not  arise  merely 
from  the  art  itself,  but  it  is  often  d^ba.sed  by  mean  and 
trivial  words,  which,  instead  of  rendering  it  a  subject  of  phi- 
losophical speculation  by  its  magnificence  and  sublimity,  pro- 
duce a  contrary  efl'ect,  of  little  or  no  estimation — however 
pleasing  it  may  be  to  some.  And  this  abuse  is  not  wholly 
confined  to  the  theatre;    but  has  even,   intruded  into  places 


On  Ancient  Greek  i}fuvic. 


447 


sacred  worship ;  where  it  is  sometimes  rather  fitted  to 
excite  the  soft  and  eficmiuate  passiuiis,  tlian  tu  fill  the  mind 
with  an  honest  and  calm  delight — to  regulate  the  manners 
— to  revive  courage — and  to  inspire  us  with  an  awful  ve- 
neration for  the  Most  High  and  his  sacred  laws.  And  for 
these  purposes  was  this  art  learned  and  cultivated  by  the 
ancients  ;  who  by  applying  it  to  the  great  end  for  which  it 
was  given  us  by  the  Almighty,  tasted  in  its  utmost  perfection. 
And  to  this  we  must  attribute  those  wonderful  efTects  men- 
tioned above,  when  they  sung  the  actions  of  their  illustrious 
§men,  their  triumphs,  their  public  laws,  tragedies,  moral 
instructions,  and  the  praises  of  their  Gods.  In  order  there- 
fore to  restore  music  to  its  ancient  dignity  and  service,  we 
have  chosen  the  divine  subject  of  the  Psalms ;  and  to  render 
it  again  if  not  of  equal  efficacy  with  that  of  the  ancients  by 
reason  of  its  different  laws,  at  least  more  conformable  to  the 
sacred  use  for  which  it  was  principally  intende<I :  namely  the 
worship  of  the  Deity." 

Such  are  the  words  of  this  great  man  ;  and  his  compo- 
sitions fully  bear  out  .what  he  here  says.  Most  modern 
musicians  blame  him  for  want  of  variety,  poverty  of  har- 
mony, and  neglect  of  ornament ;  but  I  am  happy  to  be 
able  to  justify  by  what  little  experience  I  have  had,  an 
observation  which  I  have  heard,  that  general'y  the  older 
musicians  become  the  more  their  admiration  of  Marcello''s 
music  increases'*.  Such  men  are  rare  in  these  days — perhaps 
(and  that  in  an  inferior  degree)  Jackson,  of  Exeter,  is  the 
only  parallel  which  we  can  furnish  to  him.  Handel  was 
almost  contemporary  with  Marcello.  We  owe  much  to  him 
in  every  way — but  less  perhaps  in  this  particular  province 
than  to  those  who  are  second  only  to  him,  Haydn  and 
Mozart. 

But  I  am  departing  from  my  subject  when  I  ought  to 
be  hastening  to   close  it  in.      My    only   wish  is  that  all  my 

■■  There  ire  two  work*,  of  hU  which  I  much  wiih  to  *et,  lince  I  think  It  probable 
ibM  be  developed  in  thicm  hia  ideas  of  what  Mcie-nt  muiiic  wu.  (~hie  i*  a  poem  by 
Abate  Conti,  cntitlctl  "  II  Titiiotco"  aiiii  net  by  him  to  music,  founded  on  Ih-ydai's 
Alcsander'n  Fcasi ;  and  the  other  a  poeni  by  hiniitelf  in  which  C^Mmdra  piophcaic* 
the  dettruction  of  Troy  after  the  manner  of  the  (anandra  in  the  Agamemnon,  and 
which  he  romponcd  purpoecl)-  to  have  the  opportunity  of  cxpreMiDg  the  deeper  and 
more  unusual  pauions  in  tnuiical  Innpuage. 

Vol.  II.    No.  5.  3L 


44H 


On  Jnrienf  GrerJt  Mtmir. 


readers  were   iimsirians,  thai    we  rniglil   join  &\u\   do  our  ut-~ 
.  mnf>t  to  restore^  as  far  as  may  be^   this  divine  art  to  its  old 
and  priiitiDC  dignity. 

But  no  one  can  hope  to  do  much  in  the  present  degraded 
state  of  music.  Til]  it  is  allowed  its  proper  place  in  general 
education,  it  will  not  I  fear  be  found  desirable  to  re«ti>re 
it  to  its  ancient  simplicity.  Musicians  are,  perhaps  de- 
servedly, held  in  a  qualified  contempt  among  us:  the  practice 
is  discouraged,  tlie  study  almost  forbidden :  the  cultivation 
of  a  musical  ear,  even  among  those  who  are  otherwise  most 
anxious  to  cultivate  all  their  fnculties,  is  neglected  and  de- 
spised ;  our  music  is  overladen  with  a  multitude  of  burden- 
some and  uxtrane«ius  ornaments,  variations,  and  accompani- 
ments; and  where  are  we  to  look  for  those  simple  and 
severe  melodies  which  may  appeal  to  the  natural  car  and 
the  natural  soul — where  are  we  to  find  the  means  of  "re- 
creating '■''  fln<l  composing  our  tmvail^d  spirits  with  the  solemn 
and  divine  harmonies  of  musick  heard  or  learnt,  whic^  if 
wise  men  and  prophets  bo  not  extremely  out,  have  great 
power  over  dispositions  and  manners  to  smooth  and  make 
them  gentle  from  rustick  harshness  and  distemjiered  pas- 
sions?*^ I  own  it  appears  to  me  that  this  can  only  be  done 
by  applying  with  energy  to  the  study  of  the  ancient  music, 
of  our  own  and  of  other  nations,  and  especially  that  of  the 
Greeks.  And  T  hope  I  have  not  altogether  failed  in  shewing 
that  in  so  doing  wc  shall  not  be  unprofitably  employed  ". 

"  Millon,  Letter  na  Education. 

'•  There  arc  very  few  specimens  of  the  uiclent  Greek  music  extant ;  I  would  refer 
thcMC  who  wbh  to  satisfy  ihemselvca  concerning  the  nature  of  its  strains  ta  aac 
upaa  which  1  am  content  to  mn  all  my  chaoce  of  convmcing  them  of  its  heautyt  the 
orijfinal  music  of  itlie  opening  of  the  lir>t  Pythiau  Ode  of  Pindar,  Ml  in  modem  DOtes 
in  Burney's  iliw.  of  Music  Vol.  i.  p.  106.  Sir  J.  Hawkins's  Hisi.  of  the  Science 
and  Practice  of  Muuc,  Vol.  i.  p.  M.  and  in  Boecldi'i  Disacrtation  on  the  Metm  of 
Pindar. 

H   A. 


P 


DE  SACERDOTIIS  GRAECORUM 
"AUGUSTI  BOECKHU   PROLUSIO  ACADEMICA. 


I 


In  rdigionibus  veterum,  imprimis  Graecorum,  perves- 
tigondis  quum  studia  doctorum  ferveoot  quum  maxinie,  nequc 
ea  res  iis  solis,  qui  antiquis  Utteris  opcram  dant,  videatui* 
gravis  esse,  sed  quifttjuis  \arium  et  inultiplicem  generis  liu- 
mani  cultiim,  pietati»  ac  sapientiac  incrementa  et  decrementa 
per  aetatum  viciasitu dines  saepc  alternantia,  cognoscere  cupiat, 
philosophiis,  historicus^  theologus,  dcniqiie  omnes,  qui  a  li- 
Iwrali  cruditionc  nnn  alicni  sunt,  his  quacstionibus  advcrtant 
nnimos;  baud  mctticndum  vidctur  umbraticae  doctrinac  op- 
probrium, si  aliquid  nobis  de  Graecis  sacerdotibus  diccndura 
sumpserimus.  Insignem  enim  qucndam  et  bucusque  paruni 
cogaitum  ^accrdotum  constitucndorum  moduin  attulit  velus- 
tum  nionumcntum,  dccrctum  publicum  eciitineiis :  quod  an- 
tcquam  apponanius,  quomodo  vulgo  apud  Gruecos  constituti 
sacerdotcs  sint,  pauci«  liceat  praefari. 

Igitur  sacerdutia  et  uiera  niinistcria  baud  pauca,  baud 
aliter  ac  regia  diguitas,  cui  et  ipsi  sacerdotole  aaerifictorum 
munus  ex  parte  competebat,  certis  quibusdain  geiitibus  ita 
fucruDt  propria,  ut  non  potuertt  ni&i  ex  ilia  gentc  sacerdos 
vel  miiUBter  constitui:  hujusmodi  sacerdos  dicitur  'teptvv  Kara 
yevo^,  et  lepwtrvvr}  liaec  iruT^toy  et  ttotjmiciJ '.  In  quo 
genere  notissimi  sunt  Athenis  Kumolpidae  ct  Ccryccs  ac  Ly- 
cumidae",  ex  quibus  KLeusiniorum  mysteriorum  antistitcB  et 
niinidtri,  hierophanUne,  hicroceryces,  daduchi  Iccti  sunt,  ut 
ex  l*Iiillidanim  gentc  hicrophantis  crcata  est;  Etcobutadae' 
qui  Minen-ac  Poliadis  sacerdotcm  feminam,  Tbaulonidac,  qui 
Diipoliorum    popam    {(iovrvvov)     praebebant ;    aliae    Athenis 

'  Vide  Plai.  LcKK-  VI.  (>.  7jiy.  B.  ubl  ef.  Ant.  coibiikmh.  ad  I'tfig.  VI,  7-  p.  203. 
*  Honun  Metnnia  vide  apud  AliiUer.  de  Min.  PoUad.  p.  4J  mm.  ot  in  Cuqi.  Iiikt. 
Or.  T.  I.  i>.  412. 

'  Etemma  Eleohuiadanun  jnnponil  SliiUer.  1.  c.  p.  4«L 


450 


De  Sacerdotiis  Gratcorum 


gentcs  eacrae  fuerunt  Centriadae,  Cynidac,  Hfsychidae,  Pliy- 
talidac :  Milcti  clarissimi  fuerunt  BrancHidac,  Colophone 
Clarii  ApoLliniB  sacerdotes,  ccrtis  e  familiiK,  et  ferme  Mileto 
acciti  *,  in  Cypro  Cinyradae ;  omittinius  nuiUos,  quunjm 
pasHini  raentio  Bt  ^  Et  insigiii  cura  huruni  sacerdtituin  con- 
ficiuhantur  steinniata  et  indices,  iion  sine  falmlis;  adhuc  su- 
persunl  hteroplmntarum  Sleusiuiorum  aliquot  ^>temn]ata  vel 
potius  stemiiiatum  fraguuna ",  et  ex  Brundstedii,  Regis  Da- 
noruni  apud  Poutiticeui  Maximum  legati,  achedis  ad  nos 
missis  ineditum  teneuius  Halicamassioruni  Neptuni  latlimii 
sacerdotum  reccn^um,  qui  ab  ipaius  Neptuni  filio  progredi- 
tur'.  Nimirum  sive  ea  sacra,  ut  gentilicia,  stirpibus  illis 
accepta  roferebant  civitatcs,  sive  ea  inde  ab  initio  publica 
univcrsi  poputi  fuerunt,  socerdotia  nefas  fuit  transferri  ab 
lis  gcntibus,  quarum  auctores  numinis,  quod  illis  colebatur 
caerimomis,  aut  lilii  habcrcutur  aut  familiares ;  horum  quin 
etiam  posteri  soli  saeriK  Icgitinio  ritu  faciendis  et  perferendis 
ad  dcos  mortalium  prccibus,  donis,  graUarum  actionibus  ido- 
nei,  soli  eu  videbuntur  indole  natali  et  bereditaria  praediti 
esse  et  divinu  quudum  aiHatu  ingeiiito  perfusi,  lungixjue  ma- 
jorum  usu  ita  periti,  ut  apti  esseut  sanctiasimis  muncribus 
obeundts.  Sic  vatum  ars  sacerdntio  conjuncti»sima  a  pa- 
rentibus  devulvebatur  ad  liberos  ;  Telliadaeque  et  Clytiadae 
et  Jamidae  natura  insdtam  et  paternam  vaticinandi  periiiain 
habere  visi ;  natura  ortuque  Daedalidae  fuere  sculptores, 
Asclepiadae  medict,  Eunidae  citharistac  vcl  citharoedi  sa- 
cH,  Lycomidae  Cereris  cantores :  quid  quod  Spartae  prac- 
cones  et  tibicines  ct  coqui  extiterunt,  non  qui  artibuH  bis 
praestare  posscnt,  sed  quorum  jvitres  haec  exercuissent  mi- 
oisteria,  Oriental!  prorsus  et  Aegyptiaco  more*'?  Enimvcro 
quo  longius  rcpetimus  antiquitatis  mcmoriam,   eo  magis  ho- 

*  Verba  Auni  TaciU  Ann.  H,  54. 

*  Cf.  HiiUnuLoii.  I'rgeJKiiichle  des.  9xmu»  p.  91  sq.     '    ' 

•  Corp.  Inscf.  fJr.  n.  384.  SKA, 
T  Publict  U,  jubenlc  populo,  ex  antiquft  colunieUa  in  novu  ent  ubuUs  tnuucrip* 

tua;  placuerat  cnim  nfnxypa'^ai  [Ik  -rqc  dp-}^aias  fr^TifXijc  -nic  Topf^rrwtnr*  TVtt 
ayii[X/*cio»  TttXt  T]ifi  \\ocK*^mv»\  tow  [l^«rfi^fi>u  twi't  fcyy^vtinivovt^  dtr&  tt7«  irrt- 
ffiCDC  Korra  yivo^  Xtfytli  tov  II(>|«vi^u]viK  Tov  KaTt^fitiQivrov  ilW  tibi-  t^V  a'iroM:i|ui> 
jk|  Tf)di[]^i^vo«  ayaynirrurv  WotrttAaui  ks)  'A«n'XX(H>,k-t.  Additur:  Kinlv  H  ip  ai'Tii 
)«p«>«  '*'■>"  XXnv^tMvot  a'ii*:  el  bcripia  deinceps  i«cerdotum  ruHnina  inai,  appositift 
ettatnumift,  per  iiuus  ((iitsfjuc  nset  muncK  functus. 

•  Hcrodot.  VI.  Wl. 


Augusti  Boevhhii   Proiusw  Academica.  451 

ihines  optimum  quiilt^ue  ad  naturne  et  generis,  ex  quo  quisque 
natus,  beneticiuni  rettulisne  intelligimiis,  ncc  pauca  cKiruni, 
quae  hinc  manarunt,  instittitorum  vestigia  in  cuUissimam 
Graecae  eruditionis  actatcm  propagatn  sunt.  Kt  profecto 
hereditaria  ilia  sacerdotia  inagnam  partem  et  sanctioni  ceteris 
fucnint,  ct  aA  cas  pertinuerunt  religiones,  quae  ex  surama 
traditn  nntiijuitate  interiorett  qua.sdam  de  rebus  divinis  et 
humanis  .sententias  vel  pottus  divinantium  sensus,  symbolo- 
rum  involucris  indutos,  demon strabant :  inter  quas  facile 
prima  sunt  Eleusinia  niysteria,  in  quibus  etsi  doctrinam  nul- 
1am  scientioe  formuli»  coiuprelieusam,  qualem  in  illis  unquam 
esse  quae&itam  mireris,  traditam  inystis  ct  epopcis  esse,  neque 
arcanac  disciplinac  custodcs  ct  dispcnsatores  hicrophantas 
fuisse  Optimo  ostendit  Lobeckius  in  libro  iusigni,  qui  Aglao- 
phamus  inscriptus  est;  tamen  ille  non  magis  quam  lo.  Henr. 
Vosaius  id  videtur  effecisse,  ut  exulare  jam  e  remotiore  an- 
tiquitate  synil>oIa  debeant,  et  ad  novicios  allegoretas  reiicienda 
altior  omnis  fabularum  et  caerimoniarum  interpretatio  sit. 
Immo  ea  ipsa,  quae  in  Elcusiniis  esse  rcpraescntata  constat, 
ct  univcrsa  Corcris  ac  I'roscrpinac  fabula,  ab  agrario  deorum 
cultu  prisco^  profecta,   non  philosopha  quidcm  ratione  oon- 


'  Qutn  priicus  hie  cullus  fuerit,  nemo  ilubltat :  sed  omm  m»turc  cluus  fuerit,  a 
Lobeckio,  vin>  praesuntiMimo,  tlubiutum  est,  qui  KleusinUx  caerinuiniu  mm  demutn 
inclaniisAe  piiui^  'C)uiiin  RleuKis  Alheaix  acccsKiawt,  SolnnJR  vcro  aetaie  l!^leu»tnem 
nondum  tinniter  cum  Aliienicn»ibus  coalui»c  coUcRit  ex  bello,  quod  canitucmurut  He- 
rodoiuK  I,  30.  (Agl.  p.  21-1:].  Sed  in  hac  re  ab  cv  errvtum  easu  nionuit  jun  iMullenis 
(Dor.  T.  t.  p.  17^*.];  nihil  que  est  certiuitf  quam  illud  belluni  non  inter  Athcnieiuca 
et  EleuBtnion  g^estum  cm«.  Bed  propc  Kleu»incm  inter  vidno*  Me^veoMM  ct  Athc- 
nicHMKi  qu'  tencbant  Et^iiinem  :  Sulonis  eniiu  aeUle  notuoi  est  Megvemes  plui 
aemel  dimic&sM  cum  AihenlensibiiH.  Et  atlquatenuii  »iia  rctncuvit  Lobeckiuii  ipw 
(T.  II.  p.  1351.).  Uaud  dubic  autem  Eleosissicui  retiquA  Atticu  oppidi  jun  turn 
cum  Athcnia  in  unam  coaluerat  clyiuteni,  quum  adhuc  rejfibus  pArerent  Athenui  nt 
Theoeo  banc  oppidonim  conjunct! oncm  subUtin  sinjrulonim  prytancii  tribuit  fama 
Qptimis  MTiptr>ribus  et  ipsi  Yhucjrdtdi  probata  t  £leu»inia<]uc  luiii  ipsuiu  jam  fuerunt 
Aitica,  et  Athenanim  rex  Kleu-stnui  curabat.  CJua  de  re  eo  minua  dubilandum.  quod 
etjam  in  Ionia,  et  nominaUm  Epbeni,  C'mIH  potteris  mandata  Eleuxiniae  CercriB  saira 
fiimint  (.<trab.  XIV.  inU.);  quod  ncutlquam  esse)  factum,  nisi  primi  tilt  colmii,  qui 
Codridia  dudbus  »  communi  c(  uiio  Atbeiiarum  prytaiieo  eKrcasi  loniam  occuparunt, 
Mcam  attvliiwenl  sacra  ElcuRinia,  rcKlbimque  hacc  ex  cu  indc  tcuipore  tuisMnt  propria. 
Nam  poflthac,  quum  rr^fia  di^Jtas  magis  iniliea  imminucrelur,  Don  auctae  reguiu 
praerogativme  sunt.  Imma  Athcnin  ipNin  KlcuBioioruni  cure  ca,  quae  apud  Jonei  ad 
('odrida«  pertinebat,  tranxiicTat  ad  rcj;em,  qui  est  inter  novem  arrhonioi  (PoU.  VIII, 
90.  Harpocr.  v.  <-ri^(XtrTrj<i  -rmu  fivnTupimv)  :  h[  vent  Inde  ex  prima  inatilutjoric,  hoc 
e»tab  Olymp.  24.  ncm  ncce»6uio  fuerc  Codridac.     Paiei  isilur,  quod  in  Ionia  Ci»lridis 


452 


De  Sacerdoliis  Graecorum 


r 


cepUm  sctl  profunclo  scnau  virtbufi  naturae  gcnitalibus  tacto 
divinatam  palingcnesiam  el  mortolium  imraortalitatem  liquiilo 
adumbrant,  e:c  morte  reviviscentium  velut  semina:  quam  sa- 
cerdotes  viri  feminaeque,  "  quibus  quidem  curae  fuit  earum 
rerum,  quas  tractabant,  posse  rationem  reddere  '°,**'  quam 
Pindanis  et  Plato,  credo  etiam  Isocrates  et  Cicero,  ex  iUis 
collegerunt  cacrimoniis ''■ 

Cctcrum  ctiam  in  iis  saccrdotiis,  quae  certarum  gentium 
fuerc  propria,  aut  clectioni  aut  sortitioni  puluit  locus  esse: 
quemadinodum,  pnstquam  rcgium  imperiuui  abolitum  est, 
ex  certU  nubilium  gcntibus  arcliontes  regiorum  sacroruin 
heredee  logi  coepti  sunt,  aiitequam  summi  niagistratus  ca- 
pessendi  jus  vel  cum  omnibus  optimo  jure  ci\nbu8  vel  cum 
ditioribus  coram unicaretur,  et  simul  sacra  quaedam  ad  hos 
transirent  sive  sorte  sjve  suffragiis  creates.  Aut  cnim  sacer- 
dotitim  genti  proprium  a  patre  ad  filium  vel  propinquos  ab 
intcfitato  heredes  transiit,  quod  in  solos  pcrpctuos  sacerdotes 
(iff^euy  ^td  (i'tovy  ai^iou?,  aiwviov^)  cadit,  quales  sunt  Hali- 
camassii  illi  Noptuni  ttacerdoten,  de  quibus  supra  monuimuB, 
L't  Spartai!  sacerdotes  Castorum  Horculisquc  successores, 
aliique  multi^';    aut   sacerdotes  ministrique  ex  gente,  penes 

relicut  ai  EleuUTiiorum  am,  id  rcpcticum  esse  ex  priorc  ante   Olymp.  34.   aetat^l 
Eleuidniis  in  loniatn  traoilBtls,  quum  eaniin  in  Attica  cura  adhuc  apud  Codridas  etaete  ' 
at<]iie  ita  ElniNlx  tene  jam  ani«  Olynip.  21.     Athenlmslft    ci7itati»  pan    fuiue  in> 
telliffitttr.    Sed  fuit  vel  sob  retdbua  ipsii  diu  ante  illam  Olynipiadcni. 

■"  Haec  Plaioah  verba  sunt  Alenun.  p.  JU.  D.  qui  etsi  Eletuinia  iion  nominat.  vix 
taiDen  ilU  ad  alios  Bacenlmea  reltulenx.  ralline  llipponici  f.  daducbo  earum,  qua* 
IncMbat,  renim  raiJonem  ccnU  non  fuiaae,  facile  larinniur. 

"  Pfnd.  Ftapn.  p.  fl3B.  cui  ip«€  Lobcckiwn  tribult  ali()uantuluni ;  Plat  1.  e.  ijuem 
ctiam  PhaMlan.  p.  "(9.  C.  iibi  traXaiA^  Xii^cy  dc  palingcri'mia  aA'cit,  MreTdotalem 
judic«»  csrraiionem  In  mente  liabiiJMe,  non  Pyihagoricam  aapicniiam.  Nee  spreveri- 
inu«  IwMTaleni  Panq;.  rap.  6.  licet  quae  de  Eleutiniis  diclt,  laUcm  pmthnc  aigniKeobi 
transtuloctt  Id  "Zv/Lfi-axtMou  cap.  12-  Cic«Tonis  loctu  nntun  eat  I^c^g.  II.  IS.  quern  non 
videniuft  cur  non  ex  PLndaro  explicare  lir«at ;  codemque  perttoeL,  quod  Tusc.  1,  18. 
d«  Tltik  defuDCtJ>runi  signlUcaiur  obttcurlua.  Ubi  prudentinime  himul  addidtt  vIt  la- 
pientkir  quam  plurimia  videtur :  Sed  tfui  nondum  ta,  quae  mu/tU  pott  anniji  tractari 
coffimtfnl,  phyrica  dutieifxfnt,  ianlum  tiU  pertuatfranty  ^fuatttum  natvrn  ad- 
monente  eoanovrraal ;  rationr*  ft  eantat  rerum  non  ientlnrnt.  Viddliu*  autem 
Odofr.  Mhlleruni,  qui  tatnen  a  vulKuium  ■lleffDreiarum  vaaitaiealienlagimus  est  idrm- 
que  tninime  oedulus,  non  mulium  oc  Dot  titter  ACntire  in  Pmle>[g.  AlyUioL  p.  2A5. 
PoWremo  ctiam  poot  Lobeckium  Agl.  T.  ii.  p.  BOl  nqq.  non  atnittenduni  ridecur, 
liumolpum  ilium  fabulofluin  Thracetn  potisslmum  haberi,  apud  Thracn  vvro  quomUm 
Tel  mlgi  ftpinioiie  morietn  pmelatain  huic  «mc  viUc. 

>*  I>c  Spartanls  cf.  Corp.  Inner,  fir.  n.  1340.  vt  Ihi  nouta.     Sic  SeopeUuiiu  dpxit- 

fiti't  'Afflinc  ul-rnt  T-«   Kal   fi    -rfli^ownt,  irni%  in   -raTpiv   1f<(l^«,    Phflostr.    Vtt.   Soph. 


Auguati  Boeckhii  ProUmo  Acttdemica. 


453 


qiiani  id  juri.s  erat,  suffragiu  vel  sortitione  creati  sunt:  id 
quod  neeessarium  fuit  in  annuia  saccrdotiis  aliisquc  sacris 
niinistpriia" ;  quainquam  sacerdotia  gentibus  certJs  propria 
baud  dubie  perpetua  fucrunt  plurima :  sed  hos  qiioque  per- 
petuos  sacerdotes  et  ccteroa,  qui  perpetui  quidom  cssent  noc 
tonieu  ex  ccrta  gcnte,  eodcin  modo  constitui  potiiisse  sponte 
patet'*.  Veruni  antequam  Romana  instituta  latius  per 
orbem  t«rraruni  propagate  sunt,  sacerdotcs  suffragio  Iccti 
(a'lpeTot  s.  ^fipoTovtjTot)  non  miilti  videntiir  fiiisse,  licet 
banc     creandi     rationeni    probasse    Homerus     perhibeatur " ; 


t,  21,  2.  quciii  Incuin  ilc  hac  re  di»ctcns  ittulii  SpaalLcin.  in  CaUioi.  Psllad.  fU. 
Necfictalex,  scd  ad  ccria  miccrdntla  lesirinf^eiida,  ijuac  ohlinuiase  hine  inde  dicitur, 
T^«  U^Mawcnt  Ti>(<c  raidat  tiZv  ^aTiftatv  ttaiiy^ta^ai  (Uennogeii.  PartitL  c.  U.  «t 
Marcclltn.  ad  llcnaa^.  p.  71-] 

■>  i'f.  de  lepauXi}  Attieo  quae  diximiu  Corp.  Iiurr.  Or.  T.  i.  p.  3^5.  h  %t{. 
Daduchi  peqwtui  quidcm  futrurit,  trd  videnlur  plum  munus  per  vices  obisiic,  alius 
alio  anno  (cf.  ad  Coip.  Inscr.  Ur.  n,  31)8.  3!M.) 

■*  Hut;  rettuleris  verba  in  prooemiia  Demnctheni  tributia  posdta  p.  1461.  .1.  uhi  cfuod 
praetorcs  fere  pcrpctao  jidcoi  sint,  AthcxueiiM»  dicontur  •mavramtn  tv«  airnm  rp6- 
mVfit^rtp  TH^T  ItpeiK,  Ka^iTTiitfui  kki  tol'v  a^j^uvrnT. 

■>  Schol.  Iliad.;,  300.  p.  1!(1.  B«kk.  (ad  verba  -njir  yap  Ipin  JflrrKav  'AO»ri-aV 
Xipttav)  :  OiJt*  KXijpiarotiK  <ivTf  Ik  ytvouv  fioiXr-rai  Toii^  ItptXx  fTcci,  oUrt  ^/litpta  iiiot^ 
AX' (iDt  T^rj^in  ifftiif}i^6fi.tvoir  tXaiTo.  Similia  Emitathiun .  AriitotcUt  cjuidera  locus 
PoliU  IV,  13.  3.  Schncid.  ad  qucm  provocant  nonnulli,  a'ip*i7iv  Mccrdomiu  non  evln- 
dt,  quod  ibl  saccTdotuR]  metitio  ad  lolam  roccm  -rairt  Kktipt^ralf-i  rcferri  potcat;  a'lpt- 
Twv  tamen  cxempla  supcrsunt,  ul  in  dccrctn  Deliaco  Corp.  Iiucr.  Ih.  a.  2^(1.  esi 
aacordoa  alp*6rh  i^A  -raH  i^uw.  Dearutn  nt  vldctnr  Elerwiniarum,  simt  ctiam  CererU 
Eleufiniae  hteropbaatis,  HoinoDa  quideot  actatc,  sed  more  o)>iiior  priMro,  suflragio 
creata  est  tCHte  Utulo  Corp.  Itucr.  Or.  n.  434.  ev-ri  fit  K<*.^oiri^iii  diiot  9ivav  Upo^av- 
T(v:  quae  rcrba  cxcltidimt  Horti tionem.  DeaniTn  KleuHiaiaruni  cdani  Irptrwinol 
SuffKfiio  creati  sunt  (DcmoMh.  in  Mid.  p.  IVr2.  (>-)  ct  quattuor  (iri^aVq-ml  tmv 
futirrripliitv,  qui  cmc  specie  quadoni  sacerdotii  gsudebant:  hi  cnim  a  )>opulo  creati 
manuum  sublaiiotie  rudl,  bini  ex  univemui  Atheniensibua,  iiingnli  ex  £umatpldis  el 
C«rycibut>.  Neque  alitcr  coDiiiituti  jmnitid  wois  oonjuncti,  itipoifirvat^  ut  ait  Cratea 
(Athen.  VI.  p.  '23r>.  <\  coll.  p.  234.  A.)  A'ipttriv  vent  et  x*^"'^""^'^''  ■"  eliKetidli 
ma^stiatihuii  nnn,  ut  Tulgo  puiacur,  dlH'erre,  Mti*  dorent  vel  loci  AriBtoielii  a  Srhii. 
mannn  de  romict.  p.  310.  aUatl,  cunseniiente  Plaloois  i^enere  loquendi  \/tf(f'.  VI. 
p.  7«5.  U  sqq.  fttquc  crrani,  qui  ob  Aescbinis  verba  in  (-teniph.  p.  425.  (quae  »«quitiir 
Buclor  Arg.  II.  Dem.  in  Aiidrol.)  dlatiiifcuunl  x*H>''^''*'V''^^  c*  alpervlnf  quasi  tiod 
l^^im  tribtiH  tribuiirnqne  partes,  illos  popoliu.  Quippc  Aenchinea  verba  tegia, 
Kol  fl  Tivft  a\Xoi  alptroi  '^ytpafutu  Sii>{itrrt]pioti  \anfid»owi.  docet  non  poMC 
niai  de  its  dicta  eaie  magiirtratibiu,  quon  tribua  tribuumque  pann  crvariot,  quod  dem. 
pda  ita,  quoa  lea  jain  supra  coaiiDcmoTaraU  x'^f'^"^^"**  ^'  K\qp«rrait,  nan  uiper- 
aim  alii:  at  hacc  interprdatto  qiutnivi*  juiu  non  intpedit,  quominus  et  hi  niywrol 
fuerint  y^tpoTavrrroU  ^  iHi  x"''*^*''^''''*'  lucfuit  uiptroi,  Ceterum  recenliorea  Ciraeel 
alpto-iv  aliqnaDdo  etiam  latiore  mmisu  pro  Karatrrdott  dicuQU 


454 


De  Sacerdoiiia  Graecnrurn 


sed  quetnadraoiluni  IHato'*  sortc  illos  coni^titui  jubet,  ut 
eorunt  constitutio  deo  sortium  rectori  comraittalur,  sic  plu- 
rima  sacordotio,  et  niaxime  annua,  vulgo  erant  KXrjpwTa^  oo 
tamcn  adhibito  tcmpcramcnto,  ut  qui  sortiri  vcllcnt,  horum 
noniina  cum  praerogativa  nohilitatis  cdcrct  corum  concio, 
ad  quos  pcrtinercnt  iliac  rcligiones";  ncquc  alitor  in  Eleu- 
siniis  6  fivovfievo'i  €<p'  eur'ta^  coiistitiitus  est'".  £x  qua 
Bortis  sanctitatc  etiam  lllud  rcpetendum  vidutur,  quod  Athe- 
nis  ccrtc,  quum  pylagori  sufTragiis  crcarcntiir,  taumn  hieroni' 
nemones  sortito  ubtiiiebant  uiunus,  utpote  sacerdotalis  ixia- 
gistratus. 

Hac  igitur  aonitione,  quae  licet  religione  ipsa  excusata 
esset,  non  tamen  potuit  non  efficere,  ut  sanctissima  munera, 
eodeni  modo  quo  magistratus  civiles  gliscente  popular!  im^ 
perio  Bortis  fortunae  commissi,  in  hoiTiinum  Jevia«imnrum 
traderentiir  maniis,  vix  ncgaveris  sacerHotum  auctoritatem, 
dignitatem,  honorem,  »imulque  et  horum  et  ceterorum  ho- 
minum  pietatem  esse  imminutam.  At  multo  damnosior  et 
prorsus  inhonesta  consuetudo  invaluit  ea,  cujus  causa  hacc 
cxponerc  instituimus.  Sicut  enim  Simon  Magus  a  Di\'is 
ApoKtolis  oblata  pecunia  postulavit,  ut  cum  ipso  communi- 
carent  potestatcm  imponendis  manibus  Spiritum  sanctum 
dandi,  medioquc,  quod  vocant,  acvo  Simonia  magis  mQgi»- 
que  increbruit,  "  indignis  quibuslibet  et  Simoniaco  felle  aroa- 
ricatis  ecclesias  vendendo";  ita  Diuuysius  Halicamassensis** 
Numae  de  sacerdotibus  creandii^  instituta  laudaus,  qtu  nee 
venaiia  sacerdotui  fccerit  nee  softe  distribuenda,  queritur 
quod  ceteri  temere  pleruraque  et  inconsiderate  designarint 
sacrorum  antistites,  et  alii  eos  sorte  constituerint,  alii  in- 
super  plus  licetitihiis  mttneHs  honorem   addlverint   'pecitnia. 


'•  irfgg.  VI.  p.  ;fl9.  a 

moiith.  tMlv.  £ubuHd.  p.  13)3.  30. 

'•  C'<ir]i.  Iiiftci.  Gr.  T.  r.  p.  445.  t>. 

>*  Ui  &it  Hdiricus  IV.  Qcrniimoniin  rex  in  Kttcii*  ad  Uregorium  Vll.  dttll 
(Chronic.  Vitduu.  in  I-iabb.  bibl.  niaa.  T,  i.  p.  2U9.) 

■  Archaeol-  II.  p.  2H2.  *Eir«iTu,  <>ti  tmj-  aXXt*w  l^aA(l^<  »w«  t.-al  owc/mw- 
mtlt-rwt  •»«  mtI  -woXii  ^oioviiivtav  t«'«  aiptatit  (hoc  dixit  p.  Kfratrriattv)  tup  iittv- 
Tirvo/Mfa*-  Talv  if f^t>i^y  kuI  tv*  /tjar  dpyvpiou  Ti  Tiftiov  dxatcupurrtiy  a^tovirTm¥,  tmv 
a  uXnpm  itaifiouirTat¥  to^t  Upeii,  iictipm  afrre  tiinirmt  x/fWH^TMc  ^o(tr<rc  -rdt  l«p«K 


AvgusH  Jioerkhii  Prohino  Aeademicn. 


495 


<juac  non  ita  dicta  esse,  lit  corniptori  iis,  qui  sacerdotpm 
Icgerent,  clanculum  pecntiins  Jargito  datum  saecrdotiiim  pcr- 
hibcalur»  scd  propric  atq»ie  ex  vero,  ac  sacci-dotalia  miinera* 
ut  portoria  et  vcctigolia  auctionc  publica  esse  vendita,  docet 
ejuMleiti  civitatis,  ex  qua  Diunysius  oriundus,  pk'biscitum 
inedituni,  idque  pluribus  noininibuK  tneniorabile,  quod  a 
Werninrkio,  centurione  Uritannico,  ex  mamiore  oxceptuin 
niisit  nobis  Brondstodiiis :  hoc  cnim  decrcto  Ilnlicarnassiu- 
rum  senatus  et  jiopulus  succrdutium  Dianae  Pergaeae,  ciijus 
cultus  p«r  Astam,  supcrstitioniim  quarumlibct  rcferti&siunani, 
late  propagatiis  est,  turn  quiim  has  caerimonia.s  rcciperet, 
locandum  proposiiit,  incerta  quidem  aetate,  sed  quantum 
ex  scripturae  geiiere  conjicere  licet,  ante  Octavjani  Augusti 
itnpcrium.  Qund  plobiscitum  qmim  ubcriorc  cxpHcatione 
indigcrc  non  videatiir,  id  satis  habemus  cnitndatum  appo- 
suissc^  et  devitato  omni  supervacaneoe  eruditionis  apparatu 
breves  infra  addidissc  notulas.  Est  igitur  his  verbis  con- 
ceptum. 

Eiri  cJewTTOioiJ  \apfLit\\\ov  [x]ou  Aiayopov-,  fj-iivov 
*Hpa[K\€i]ov,  TrpuTovetas  Ttjs  fierd  MevfhXev^  rov  <bo^ 
ftitifvott    [yp^anfjiaT€vovrM   Aioootou  tou  'H[ojoi'*(Coy,  e[oJoff 

tT^  j3oy\]v  KQi  "^Itf*]  ^[»/Ja"5'»  yvwfjitj'^  TTpvTavcQfv,  irpiajuL 
eyi}^  Tt}]v  icptjTftav'^  T^y  '  Aprefnooi  t^?  nf/j['ya]iaF 
ir[a/)]e^eTa[i  Ije^tiaw  arjTrjv  ei;  acrraii'  ati\<pi\orepwv  eiri 
[xpje??  ■yeveae  yeyeuiffievtiv,  kcu  irpo*;TraTpiK  Ka\  ir^w?  firjTpw'  tt 
Of  Trpiattevtj  i€paa€Tai  exi  {^«"/^"  '^1'>  «"'''*/[*"]»  ****  Ouaft  -ra  tepa 
Ta  dvjuoT[eXc]u''  koi  ra  iiuoirud,   koI  Xf;>//eTat  TOfp  Qvoi*€vwr 


»  Tinifiij  ftine  tots  itniMn-.  exualuni  muiiretto  primut  caxiu  at,  at  ia  pluribiui 
decreiiii  pabticU,  de  >quihiiit  alio  loco  tliccmu».  Idem  ridetur  in  w,  decrctis  reni- 
tucndtu,  qui  apud  DemcMLhenein  IcKunlur,  quamquam  Rcimuii  esse  quae  contn  diet 
quauL 

*  Hoc  est  -KptftfLivi^  TIT.  Artieulus  licet  iii&a  addtius  hoc  loco  dc  induntrift 
omiMwi  t%u 

**  De  tuic  fbnna  vide  ftd  Corp.  Ijucr.  Gr.  ti.  1003. 

**  Aq/«aT«Xia  dcdlcnus,  non  infiorxnd,  quod  illud  Ten  luitatum  In  hac  r*  ttti 
■olutA  fonna  potuit  ex  vetunto  ubu  retenu  rMe,  ut  ftupn>  M«i>*kXc««.  Fonnulam 
Upa  infiOTtXii  tllusu-ftvjmus  Oec  civ.  Athen.  T.  i.  p.  238.  et  Uutttnasnuft  ad 
Demoftth.  in  Alid.  p.  &3I.  ubi  eun  Dodonaeo  reddidit  ormculo  Kcundo,  eximie 
IDe  In  hi*  onculii  eaiendandU  vwftatus  nisi  quod  In  Rnc  piori»  pD«  tot  egrcgiaa 
caireetiones  defecit  fatigatus.      Verba  nint:    rtr  M   Atwvrt    fJovv  teal  S\\a  UptXa, 

In   quibu»  ridicule  infinilum  e»t   lUud  iWa^  ridtcula   nilima  dictio  «.al  »^«  ftc 

Vol.  II.  No.  5.  3M 


486 


De  SacerdoUis  Graecorwn-, 


^rjfioc'iif  o[<p']  €Ka<TTOv  iepc'iou  KtaXtiv  tial  to.  ewt  KtoXij  vsfAO^ 
fieva  Kai  TeTapTt)no[p^iJ[o^a  tr'jrXayy^vwv  Kat  Ta  ccy)/i<zTa« 
TWM  ce  t[o(]fitTi[ica)]ty  Xt/yjieTat  kwK^v  Kat  ra  ciri  KoiXtj  ve^* 
fxo/x€va  Kat  TerapTtjfxopi^a  trirXay^uwv.  tow  oe  Ta/i[i]a« 
oidovat  Tois  irpuTaveaiv  eis  Ttjv  Bvtriay  Ttj^  ' Apre/xtoo^  eiTcXe?"*, 
Spa-y^fxa^  Tptd[K]otn-a.  Trapa<TKeva[^]€tv  ee  Tfjv  [B]v<riav  ras  i 
yvvaiKai  ra^  Tttiy  irpvTavtwv,  Xa/JovCTOy  to  ck  [t]^?  ir[o\]e«uS 
ctcofievov,  TUiy  TrpwavevovTytOji'  TOfi  fxijva  tov  H^nvcXcioi'* 
Tfjv  oe  Bvtj'tav  <ri'i'T«[\]e*Tw  firivo^  H^oucXeiov  «tfoc«a'T>7,  ecrrttt 
it  [jj  'tiepeta  itrofiotpov  [f<*l*  '''<*t5  yvvai^Lv  Tt^v  Trpurdvewv, 
Ttnv  dvofievwu  onfjuyritfi.  iroteierOto  ce  ij  tepeta  Kad'  eKcitrTijy 
vovfi*]viap  iTTucovpiav  vvep  froXcon,  Xafij^vovaa  cpa-j^firjv. 
€V  [_ip  oje  fxtjul  ^  Ovaia  [crJvrre^XjciTai  ^  Oi^juareXiys-, 
ayetpereo  Trpo  v^<jqv  ["rjat  tjfiepav  Tpei^,  ctt  o'ikIuv  ju*J 
•B-Opfvofie mj^'  o  ie  ayepfios  eaToj  Tjji  lepeias.  «taT[ttJa<ewa- 
Tcjai  d€  r"'"~lj;ri'J  i€p€tTav  Kjai  to  tepov  ou  av  fiovXrjTat^m 
KaTa<rK€vatTaTto  oe  nai  Orjaavpov  Tt}  [0Jcif'>  ei'[j3JaX[XjeTa»- 
ffav  ^6  o[I]  9i/[o]kiT[e]s  etrt  fA€v  Ttp  TeXeiy  oij3]o['^]'>''[^]  , 
evo,  eirt  de  yaXaQeivto  ofioXov'  ofotyovTutv  oe  oi  efcratrrai 
Kar  Gviavrlo^v  roy  Oi)aavp6e.  Addita  sunt  ctlam  alia,  scd 
teniporis  injuria  ita  mutilata,  ut  hoc  ca  locu  omittenda  ccn- 
seamus. 

Scr.  Bcrolini  d.  x.  m.  Januar  a.  udcccxxx. 


nam   i^tiod   apithiKti/  At  donuio  dictum    puUtui    nondum  oonMcnto,  sed  pMihacI 
dcmutn    coosccruulo  ex    vato    priun   susctpto,    fcrri   nequit:    (Jc*d>iA>i>  non  utxiuam' 
inter  tct  exsmpU  didlur  ntiil  de  donario  j*in  poftito  ct  coateamio.     Scribe:  liovp  tnl 
dpva   itpfta,   nal  Tfid^eX^w   xaXx^it  -irpttt  tA  dvddtifia  ttc  mfnsam  apponendam 
ad  id  donarium,     (jvod  constvravit  p<rpuiut    Athenitntij.     Pulchre    pont    victlniM 
•dditu  vox  itptia,  ut  iliac  dUtini^uaitttir  k  menaa,  ga&c  ex  alio  pronus  est  gtnae, 

■*  8c.  iffitJov  Kfti  ifi,  etc, 

"  Non  intrant  aedtt,  ut  ap.  Demonh.  de  cor.  p.  271.  13.  tr*  aUim  fiaittf»v.    Ov 
Hlpls  coUcctiane  {dyepixtp)  nota  sunt  omnia,  maxime  po»t  Ruhtik.  ad  Tun.  p.  3. 

'"  Tam  Iptum  igilur  Halicarnaut  Dluue  Fetgacac  cnlma  primum  institutus  est, 
fcmpluiiique  Dondiun  exalrucium  falL 


r 


DE  TITULIS   QUIBUSDAM    SUPPOSITIS 
AUGUSTI    BOKCKHII    PROLUSIO    ACADEMICA. 


Ante  hos  octo  fere  annos  Radulphi  Rochetti  potissimum 
hunianitate  et  littcrarum  propagandaxum  studio  laudabili  per 
cultissimas  Europue  terras  innotuit  moiiumentuni  vctus  bi- 
liuguc,  in  parictinis  Cyrcnarum,  ut  ferlur,  repertum  Meli- 
taccjuae  scrvatum  apud  viruni,  quantum  aestimare  licebat, 
honcstuni,  geouietram  et  arclutectuiu  niilitarera  Gallicum  ex 
eu  ordine,  ciii  de  ingenio  ouuien  inditiini :  qui  vir,  testibus 
litteriti  a  Kochetto  ad  nos  turn  datisj  a  sese  transcriptum  ex 
lapide  exemplum  Acadeniiae  Inscriptionum  Parislnae  miscrat. 
Supra  bunt  Pfioeniciac  litterae  quinque,  turn  currus  alatus 
draconibus  junctus,  duabus  insertis  taedis  ardentibus,  ad 
modu  m  i  nsign  i  uni  Eleusiaiorum  si  ve  CcreaLium ;  sub 
curru  Icgilur  Graecc :  'OXv/titr.  HAAAPI  eros  Ml:  se- 
quuntur  tres  versus  Phoeniciij  quorum  voces  ternis  punctJs 
in  trigonum  compositia  distinguuntur ;  interjectisque  dein- 
ccps  ter  novcnis  punctis  per  tria  juga  diapositis  adduntur 
Graeca,  fiovffTpo^Tt^ov  scripta  Utteris  partim  pervetustis, 
partijn  satis  novae  vel  insolitae  formae,  antiquissimo  intcr- 
punctionis  ^ncrc  {'■)  distinctis  vocabulis.  Verba  haec  sunt: 
II  Tratrwv  oumav  Kai  yvvaiKwv  KOivoTiji  vtjyrj  t^?  9eia$  €<TTt 
ciKcuocuvt}^  elfttivtf  T6  reXeia  toTs  tov  TV(p\ov  oj^Xou  CfrXexTOif 
ayaSoti  avdpaatVy  ovi  Zapadi/s-  tg  jcai  VlvOayopa^i  t^v  'tepo~ 
<PavTwv  apiffToi,  Koivt}  (TVfx^iwTetv  trvvkvro.  Infra  sculptus 
est  serpens  caudam  mordens  et  tria  trigona,  productis  in 
nnnquof|uc  omnibus  latcribus  in  altero  angulo  inscriptisque 
singularibus  puiictiH.  Sitnul  idem  gcomctra  aliam  misit 
Cyrenaicam  inscriptionem :  in  tabula  modicc  fastigiata  crux 
coniparet  circumdata  litteris  vocem  Osiris  contincntibus  et 
laurca  corona  rinctn ;  haec  corona  interpoMta  est  verbis 
SfVuri'    Kupav{mf») ;'   sub    ea   ductibus   partim   antiquis   aut 


458 


De  Titttlis  Quibitsdam  Suppositit 


priori  titulo  similibus,  partim  multo  recentioribus  »cripta, 
singularibus  piinctis  inter  bina  quacque  vocubula  iQterposi- 
\  tis,  habentur  hacc :  QtvSy  Kpovoij  Ztopodtrrptj^f  VlvSayopai, 
'EwiKovptKf  MaedaKtj^i  'lioavvtj^,  \pttrrd9  re  Kni  o\  ^nerepM 
KvpavaUoi  KaSrjyrfTat  rrvfitptovwi  evTeWutaiv  rjfiiv,  fiijcev  fxev 
o'lKewTroielaScUt  toi?  ^e  v6/xoii  appjjy^iv,  Kal  ti;i>  irapavofiiav 
KaTairoXe^elv'  touto  yap  1/  rtji  oixaioffuvij^  irij'/'N  tovto  to 
/laKapitv^  ev  Koivti  ^^f.  Horum  titulorum,  qui  multorum 
ingenia  doctoruoi  exercuerunt,  prior  quum  multas  ob  causas 
et  ob  ipsam  Olytnpici  anni  notationcm  veteribus  insuctam  et 
ante  Timacum  SicuUini  prorsus  incognitam  non  pos&ot  ei, 
quam  simiilat,  actati  tribui;  uno  ore  pleriquc  omnes  utrum- 
que  a  Giiostica  oliqua  Cyrenia  secta  circa  quintum  vel  sex- 
luni  a  Christiana  cpocha  sueculum  coiiditiim  esse  statuerunt, 
priorem  fortasse  etiam  paulo  prius;  de  vetiista  inscriptJonum 
harum  origine  non  diibitarunt  interpretes  et  cditores,  Gese- 
niiis,  qui  tie  iis  docte  egit  in  commentationc  Halae  edita, 
casijue  Carpocratianorum  haeresi  tribuit,  //.  A>  Hamaker  in 
epiiitola  ad  Ilocbettuni  a.  mdcccxxv.  publicata',  lac.  Matter 
ill  Historia  GnoRticisnn%  et  qui  nupernme  dc  interpiingendi 
genere  in  Phoenicia  inscriptione  usurpato  dixit  C.  /.  C.  Reu- 
vena^t  aliique  complures.  Indignum  bercle,  quod  tot  cla- 
rissinii  thtx>]cgi  ct  philologi  tamdiu  decepti  sunt  fraude 
Mclitensif  cui,  quutii  priinuui  ad  iios  missuiu  tituli  bilinguis 
excmplum  essct,  huiic  ipsuui  dobcrit  in  Utteris  ad  Rucbcttuin 
privatim  datis  eramus  su»picati*;  ne  diutius  dccipiantur, 
pauciii  et  quantum  paginae  huic  prooemio  concessae  rci  non 
fiimplicis  explicationem  patiuntur,  Melitae  cusoa  nuperrinie 
hos  titulos  esse  dcmonstrabimus,  non  iis  utentes  nrguinenlis, 
quae  ex  scripturae  forma,  Graeco  sermnno,  rcrum  et  scnteo- 
tiaruni  novitate  pctieris :   hacc  enim  tanto  libentius  nunc  mit- 


*  Tie  hac  cf.  OtsGnii  rensumm  in  Ephem.  Ijtu  H&t.  )SQf>.  n.  1  Ifl  nqt].  undo  Rtmol 
iniclllKiiuf,  ex  Spobni*nift  chutis,  non  quotl  Hamaker  jccccat.  a  nobis  Ueacoium  prioris 
lituli  exempluin  accepiuc. 

*  T.  II.  p.  SW.  >  KpisL  ad  Lctroan.  11.  p.  17. 

*  De  eodcm  titulo  clubttOMC  ctUiu  L'dalr.  Frid.  Koppium  noviuiuic  Noatri  judicU 
vestigium  icperics  In  (.'oqi.  Iiucr.  CJr.  T.  t.  Praef.  p.  xxx.  ubi  dlximtiM,  dc  indoatria 
alia  stque  cft,  quiK  attuli-wcmus,  exempla  insciiptiDnuni  antiquitus  flctarum  omlssa 
«ge,  utpole  ineeriu :  distiDCtiui  Inqtii  noluimus  quod  tnodestia  IniempciitTa  diffide- 
bamus  Dohit  (psi,  poiiiuim  bilingn]  tiialo  accesoit  ^imcntus,  ^ut  Initio  mjnui  mu- 
jiKtuft  vidcbalui. 


AuguMti  Boeckhii  Proluxio  Academlca. 


4iS^ 


timus,  quantu  iiiajure  HoUertia  ilia  eludere  effugto  et  t^xciisa- 
tiunibus  qualibuscunque  didicerunt  cupidi :  sed  earn  fere 
viaui  irgrcdiemur,  qua  olim  Petrizzopidum  tiraecum  falsi 
convicimuis.  Doccbimus  cundcni  hominem  alia  tinxisse;  cum 
his  coinponemus  Cyrcnaicas  titulos,  ut  cos  patent  ejusdcni 
esse  fabricae :  nee  jam  dubitabitur,  quin  doctim  Avenionen- 
sis  et  Melitcnses  duo  conscnscrint  inter  sc,  ut  pravac  crudi- 
tionis  felibus  istis  monstroRis  fucum  fuct;rent  credulii^,  Jost;phi 
Vallae  Melitensis,  qut  patriae  ope  linguae  suppusitis  Livianis 
Bcriptis  et  codice  Normannieo  famam  suam  contaminavit,  po- 
pulates et  successores,  ejusque  »  non  poena  certe  ingenio 
dignissimi. 

Anni  MDcrcxxviri.  d.  Jan.  vii.  vir  smptis  baud  paucis 
spectatus,  Marchin  Agricala  de  Fortia  d'Vrban  Avenioncnsis, 
Societati  Asiaticae  Parisinae  plura  inscriptionis  Phoeniciae 
exempla  tradidit^  quae  esset  Melitae  cfFo»sa.  dc  caque  paucis 
disseruit ;  uberiorem  mox  in  ejusdem  Societatis  consessu 
commentationem  recitavit  d.  Febr.  IV.  qua  de  eadem  inscrtp- 
tione  et  aliis  rebus  cum  JUa  conjunctis  disputnt^  Excm- 
plum,  quo<l  ante  oculos  babemus,  Enpelmanni  lithographi 
opera  expressum  est  et  Fortiae  ipsi  dcdicatum ;  id  ex  lapide, 
ut  fertur,  perfecte  servato,  cujus  tres  dimensiones  annotatae 
diligenter  sunt,  delineavit  Ge.  Grmignet  Melitensis,  olim 
geometra  militaris  Gallicus,  qui  in  patria  habitat  insula. 
Supra  scutptuf;  est  tridens  et  utrinque  oculus  cum  delphino 
aquam  ejiciente  et  aliifi  ornamcntis  minus  insignibus ;  inter 
haec  et  circum  septem  stellac  collocntae  sunt,  et  stellis  ap- 
pnsitae  stngulae  litterae  Phoeniciae,  quae  a  sinistra  ad  dex- 
Irani  sunt  I.  E.  H,  O.  XI.  OY.  A;  nuque  eniin  iucerta  earum 
lectio  est,  quod  universum  alphabetum  Phoenicium,  ex  quo 
desumptae  tituli  hujus  litterae  sunt,  in  tabula  simul  distri- 
buta  exponitur.  Paulo  infcrius  juxta  eundem  tridentem  ad 
sinistram  est  aries  vel  capricornus,  ad  dextram  cancer;  mag- 
nis  deinceps  littcris  in  media  area  scriptura  nomen  Atkins  .- 
reliqua  inscriptiu  per  xviii  series  verticales  tTTot-^tioov  dis- 
posita  est  et  simul  ^ov<TTpo<pri^6py  initio  ab  ima  dextra  facto; 
inter   binos  versus   quosque  ducta   est  linea,   ibi   interrupta^ 


*  Prior  commcnuiia  tAit*  m  Annal.  ie  U  Liueiituie  et  dc9  Aril  T>  xxk.  Fhc> 
379.  alicri  ibid.  Kuc.  384. 


tf» 


De   TituVts  Quibnsdam   Suppositis 


ubi  ex  alteru  in  ulterum  transit  lectio.  In  utruque  inscrip^l 
tiunis  latere  habctur  ancora  ct  6ub  hac  liclphiuus ;  inferior 
margo  cingitur  ornamento  simili  illis,  qiiibus  in  vasis  pictis 
Italicis  insigniri  margines  soIent".  Reliquam  tabulatn  implet 
nnta  edituris '.  liunc  igitur  iapidcni  mcn»e  Maio  a.  udcccxxvi. 
Joscphum  Felicem  Galeam^  sttccrdotem  Melitcnsem,  doccmur 
invenissc  Melitae  inter  fudicnduni ;  testes  sunt  litterae  duplices, 
quas  litliugraphi  fonua  cxpressas  ante  oculos  habemus,  Ga- 
leae utraeque,  aJlterae  eodem  anno  d.  vii,  Maii  scHptae  ad 
Grc)i))rijetuin,  quibus  hunc,  utjiutt^  Phoeniciae  linguae  studU 
uijuiii,  dunat  lapidc  ejusque  ab  illu  interprelatiuuein  pustulut'', 
alterae  d.  xxx.  August!  ad  Marchionem  datae,  quibus  sibi 
tantum  inventum  gratulntur,  cujus  pracstantiam  a  Marchi- 
one  juste  aestimatam  ipse  quidem  niinimc  perspexerit.  Neve 
auctor  etiam  antiquior  dcsideretur,  gravissimum  lapidi  oon* 
ciliat  Marchio  illustrissiiuus.  Scilicet  a.  u.  c.  uxxxvi.  Tib. 
Sempranius  Consul,  qui  tuin  Afelitum  ceperat',  haec  Graeci, 
ut  conjicitur,  nianu  inscribenda  lapidi  curavit :  T>  Sempron. 
Cos.  hoc  magni  JthiantU  et  sotibmeraae  Athlantidis  relU 
guioitm  cedit  eidemque  scrvari  eoeravit  an.  ur.  oxxxri. 
Olytnp.  cxL,  an.  nx.  Carthaginienses  vero  quum  recupe- 
rassent  insiilam,  dcfoftsum  a  Mclitensihus  hoc  monumentum 
esse  et  latuisse,  dmieit  id  lionus  ecclesiastic  us,  parum  ille 
hnrum  rerum  gnarus,  ex  fundo  putci  saxo  incisi  protraheret. 
Miruin  vero,  (juod  haee  Cousulis  nota  nou  simul  rum  Phofr* 
niciu  titulo  litliographi  arte  reprat;.st!ntata  est  I      Ncmpe  frau- 


"  Talis  videap.  OToiefmd.  in  B(ilt!g«ri  Amnlthem  T.  ii.  mI  p.  00. 

'  H«nc  qunquc  aniini  cauu  apponinmi:  ^'Ccitc  prt'ticutie  dixaavurte  d^enninE 
culiD  nu  juste  la  v^nlnhle  pcMitinn  de  I'uiriennc  Athl&ntide  qui  ti't-lcJidjiit  dcpui*  le 
Gulphe  de  la  grandc  Syrtc  juiqu'entre  Ic  ('ap  Bon  d^Afrique,  ct  le  Cap  itfareiimo  de 
Sldte,  ^tant  Ivs  Islta  dc  Alalte  ct  de  Ooze  U*  anricns  totntneti  ttu  fanneux  Moali 
AUiIm  qai  aVlovait  prcnqoc  au  milieu  de  rAtljlimtiilc  xubmo-g^  Pan  avant  I'Etc- 
ChrMiennc  32WI.  Kpoi)iLe  du  D^Iukc  d'Ogy^cn."  Epochani  hanc  iii  e^im  aanam  do- 
(Uiierat  Fortia  in  Hintoria  ajiliqua  urlii*  tCTrarum,  cle  <]ua  Infra  diccmiii. 

*  Pots  potiulma  hn«c  est :  *<  Vi  do  nuova,  che  nello  demoHre  una  sunxa  pMU  nel 
fondo  i\t\  Cortile  di  Caia  mia,  ncllo  icavo  delle  pietredel  ftmdamento  e  lum  travai* 
una  gro«»a  pi«tn  coperla  di  cacatteii  antlchi,  che  io  credo  etuere  Phenicj  ;  e  licooroe 
TOJ  vi  dilcttato  dcUo  suidio  di  quntta  lingua,  )o  vc  nc  faccio  un  Uono,  a£nche  poi  aplc- 
gandola,  nrii  direte  il  nlj^nilicaui,  rbe  quel  rarattcii  lacchiudunu."  t^iibBcripBil  Oron- 
gQCtuB :  "  L'ori|{iDa]  dc  cette  letttc  c%l  Kardi-  pai  iiioi  soij^ncuKcmcot,  conune  un  (nit 
qui  Torme  ^poi]ue,  M  qol  mc  cottauie  U  pleine  pmprieti  d'lu  aiiui  rare  monumeot." 

•  Uv.  XXI.  Al. 


AugUiti  Boevkhii  Prolusio  Avademica. 


4.fil 


dcm  frniidc  legerc  auctur  hUbtiiiet ;  posthac  (leiiiuin  t'tiam 
Latiim  inscriptio  fingenda  visa.  Nam  iit  hie  paiiUiEuni  siilv 
sistauius,  priusquam  rcliqua  hominum  lepidissimorum  piat^ula 
persequatnur,  ot  dictio  Latini  tiiuli  ct  anni  notatiu  prodit 
Buppositioncin :  noii  <|uisquani  ea  aetatc  aut  ex  urbis  con- 
ditae  aut  ex  Olyuipica  epocba  numeravif  annos  publicet 
nedum  ex  iitraque  ratione  utcunqtie"^  comparata;  ne  doctos 
quidcm  sive  Graecos  seu  Homanos  in  annatibua  de&cribcndis 
credibile  eat  epocha  urbis  coiiditae  usos  esse  tuin,  quum  M. 
Porcius  Cuto,  untiqiiioris  de  ea  epocha  sententiac  auctor, 
eedecitn  essct  annos  natus.  Igitur  postquam  et  hinc  et  ex 
ceteris^  quae  mox  oileretnus,  non  solum  Atlanticuui  titulurn, 
sed  etiam  Cvreiiatcas  Bcticiuii  esse  iiitellexisseiiius^  Geseiilus 
de  ea  re  a  nobis  certior  factus  examinavit  Atlanticum.  flunc 
quid  censctis  repperisse?  Non  Phoenicia  lingua  scriptum 
Atlanticum  titulum  esse,  sed  Melitensi  potissiiuum,  hoc  est 
corrupta  diolccto  nova  Arabica !  £tiaiu  vir  prudentissimus 
Silv.  de  Sacy,  de  quo  niagnopere  queritur  Fortia,  fidem 
tituli  addubitavit  baud  obHCure'\  licet  modeste  dixerit  lapi- 
deni  ipsum  exspectandum  esse,  ut  quid  in  illo  vere  scriptum, 
quid  male  ledum  et  explicitum  ab  interprete  esset,  dignos- 
cerctur:  neque  vero  l&pjs  unquani  Pnrisios  allatus  vidctur. 
Ccterum  quae  propoaila  a  Fortia  intcrjiretatio  est,  earn  non 
nuvimus ;  cunfeciRse  earn  Cannolu^  Melitensis,  linguae  Chal- 
daicae  professor,  dicicur,  qui  jam  prius  Gron^ieto  nomen 
Atlantis  signaque  caelestia  nrictis  et  caiicri,  stcllasque,  quae 
Pleiades  aint,  litterascpie  iis  appositas  Jehovae  sanctum 
nomen  continentes  explicucrit.  Ex  Gcscnii  interprctationc 
necessc  est  tantum  aftcramus,  quantum  opus  est,  ut  de  iis 
judicari  possit,  quae  statini  narrabimus.  Prima  aliquis  per- 
sona loquens  iiiducitur,  fortasse  Atlaall.  quern  mox  in  sce- 
nam  producemus :  hie  aese  ait  adst^ndisse  ad  montem  At- 
lantis et  conatitisse  in  medio ;  esse  haec  aepulcra  magjii 
regis   Atlantis  ;   ibi  sese   kahitnsse  per  septem  circulos  suiw. 


''  Id  Sempnmioiui  tiiulo  comp&ratio  congniil  cuiu  ncepU  hodle  Vjirroniiiiu 
tvdone^  fnruque  est  tluce  Art*  data  pmtamii^  ad  quun  prosocat  tpu  FonJA. 

"  Hoc  impriiTii»  pittet  ex  KocieUlU  A»uticaeproceisu,  quern  dlcutit,  rerbalt  iu  eon* 
ccpto:  *'  31.  Ic  AlAr((uis  tic  Forti*  ilTrbui  dannc  communicaUoti  d*uiU  lofcriptlon 
qu'anitit  Pbt.'nicicnnc,  ct  7«'iifi  ttit  trouviic  »  Maltc." 


460 


De  Titutit  Qnibusdam  SuppostHs 


et  fuijusB  s^tb  Jttsstt  regis  Ogygis  ;  nb  hoc  fastigio  vidisse 
*c  gyrum  Kjsle.nduiissUnnrum  inter  Heas  caeli  Pteiadum, 
dotntim  ttttream  patria  magni  Neptnni  et  Ogygia  honorrtti 
in  vita  sua^  trea  rofutntias  HercuUs^  Eonm  toiam,  q^iam 
late  kahitatur^  et  deas  maris,  Hispaniam  totam,  quae  pro* 
eedit  in  finihus  maris  mediterranei  et  ej^terni,  et  terram 
regis  sep/imi  Mejaratarnph,  ci  hujusinodi  alio. 

Ncc  vcro  hiscnntcntua  purtentis  fuit  auctnr:  fnltacia  alia 
aliam  trudit.  Nam  forte  fortuna  Grongnctus,  quein  solum 
ctili^unt  dii,  a.  mdcccxxi.  Melitae  amtcitiam  sibi  conciliavit 
Domeni  de  J?i«»jn,  Valliclusani  (de  Valle  clansa  sibi  notissima 
scripsisse  Fortiam  dicimus  in  transciir»u) :  ille  Rienziua  cum 
Aristone  Samin,  noto  iit  fertur  homine,  per  Graeciam  ct 
African!  iter  fecerat;  his  contigerat,  ut  quum  aliis  rebus 
antiquifl  magni  pretii  potirentur,  turn  eo  ipso  anno  in  Creta 
insula  iiivenircnt  codicein  papyraccum  Rane  quam  vetustum, 
quo  continebatur  opus  inscriptuin  sic:  "Toy  \ivfj.a\ov  Ki/pm- 
vikqZ  'ItTTopta  AtfivKol  fii^Xot  AAIIII  ".'*  Scxtus  liber  (PI) 
de  submersione  Atlantidis  agit:  dc  oa  tractaverat  I'ortia  in 
uno  ex  decern  voluininibus,  quae  de  historia  antiqua  orbis 
terrarum  conscripsit :  quod  opus  quutn  Grongnetus  Komae  a 
Fortia  acceptuni  Melitnin  secmn  attulisset,  ut  Furtiae  com- 
menta  perdisceret,  pretium  ei  visum  est  £unialea  cognoscere. 
Igitur  Pexzali  Pargiotae,  vetustae  Graecitatis  gnaro,  qui  tum 
Melitae  dpgebat,  mandnvit,  ut  sextum  Eumalei  operia  librum 
verleret  in  Italicum  scrmonem.  Mox  Aristo  diom  suprcmum 
obiit ;  codicis  heres  ilienziuR,  quum  Naupliam  proficisceretur, 
spoliatur  a  praedonibus ;  postea  videtur  ad  Satrapam  Aegypti, 
hinc  ad  Indos  Orientales  profectus  CRf^e:  codex  igitur  perditus 
esse  ji)dican<Ius  est.  Nae  isti  bene  fecerunt,  et  Aristo,  quod 
od  inferos  rcdiit,  ut  umbris  accederet  umbra,  et  Hienzj'us,  quod 
od  Indos  cvasit,  unde  nemo  cum  ad  testimonium  diccndum 
evocabit.  Nus  grntiileniur  nobismet,  quod  ccrte  scxti  Eumalei 
libri  Italics  superest  translation  quam  Fortia  jam  in  Gallicum 
sermoneiu  transtulit.    Legimus  banc  Gallicam  interpretationem 


'*  Bonus  vii  volebaL;  E^^miXcv  Ki/jot|ca(ov  Iwopla^  AtfivKtit  etc-  vel  potluft  Kf^a- 
mixtv;  lu  hac  tola  voce  Doiiunum  aduciscil  etiftm  CyrcDiucorum  titalonim  f*bricator, 
execpU  fonna  OaricM.  tirrtWataiv ;  nisi  hoc  Totuit  pro  viiio  hftbcri,  quo  minus  tititlo* 
videreiur  suapcctuB.  Eumeii  nomcn  aucior  AtUmicjte  fahiilM  itudiosUaimni  ex  h*c 
ipsaMTipuisse  videtui;  cf.  Platoncna  Critia,  p.  lU.  B. 


Angusti  Boeefcfni  Protwno  Academica. 


4«3 


Xiibro  quinto  ICumallis  de  Libya  ejusque  regc  Atlantc  (in- 
telligc  Atlantcm  II.)  disserucrat :  hoc  argumentum  pcrsc- 
quitur  sexto  libro,  excerptu  baec  diccns  ex  Aristippi  Cyrcuaei, 
Celebris  philasoplii,  historia  Libyca,  cujus  meminit  Diogenes 
Loertiu^  Iniquus  sit,  qui  postulct,  ut  totum  istum  inseramus 
libcUuni :  sufficict  aliquot  inde  miracula  cnotasse.  Reges  oliin 
Atlaatidom  siuiul  babucrunt  decern,  quos  inter  divisum  r^nura 
universum  ^^;  iinius  ex  his  filius  fuii  Alias  minor^  homo  v aide 
doctus  et  ductoriim  familioris.  Is  ex  atuicis  legit  societatein 
philosophoruin,  qui  Atlantici  vocati  sunt ;  hi  vLvcrunt  cont~ 
muniter,  et  eorum  praecipuum  piacUum  hoc  fiiity  ut  nihil 

)proprium  haberent^  ne  usures  r/uidem.  Mtffto  post  Aris' 
tippus  adoptavit  hnec  praecepta;  adJiiic,  ajt  Euinalufl,  prope 
Cyrenan  conspicitttr  locusj  ubi  beati  Uli  pkiloaophi  mnvcnie- 
hant^  et  vocatur  Atlantetui.  Illis  vera  in^tUutis  puram  Uli 
tranquillitafefn  et  felicitatem  nulla  re  iurbatam  parari  judU 
eabatit.  Sed  Atlas  secundus  Aristippo  auctore  discipulua 
fuit  Nini  Babylonii  regis;  Niniis  Ogygein  patruuni  nescio  an 
avunculum  habuit.  Ogtfgesy  quod  nomen  Phoenicia  lingua 
Servatorem  significat,  ultinius  rex  Athmtidis  fuit  (regera  regum 

.  intelligu,  Bub  quo  erant  novom  uiiuores,  ut  iii  Platonis  Critia) : 
eo  regnante  quum  diluvio  aubmergeretur  Atlantis,  ipse  multo 
labore   evasit   cum    quattuor   fibis,    Cresso^   Cadmoy   Pelosgoy 

\jano:  dum  per  mare  vagantur,  Cressus  Cretaui  condit  pater- 

'  naque  ibi  mysteria  instituic,  Cadmus  Thebas,  ubi  eliaui  porta 
Ogygia ;  mox  Elcusii^  Cadmi  filius  avita  mysteria  F.leusine 
condit :  Pelasgus  conHcdit  in  Arcadia,  Ponisquc  earn  niysteiiis 
illuRtrat:  Janus  in  Italia  succedit  Saturno,  ac  nominatur  Jinnux 
Satitrnugy   et   ipse    mysterioruni    auctor.      Postremo   Ogyges 

<  Phoenicen   occupat   et    instituit   uiystcria   eadem,   quae   Atlas 

I  minor,  ille  philosophus,  in  Libya;  Ogyges  dcinceps  JVba  vo- 
catus  est;  is  apri  ictu  percussus  quum  pcriiiset,  Adnnia  insti- 

(tuta  sunt.  Hie  autem  Ogyges  tertius  eat.  Nam  primus  rex 
Atlantidis  fuit  Atlas  I.    Neptuni  filius  (ut  in  Platonis  Critia)  : 

[abhujus  initio  ad  Ogygcm  III.  usque  effluxerunt  anni  novies 


■*  Hoc  ex  PUlonii  Critia  p.  lU.  A.  Ptnloniii  hoc  oput  Rcipublicae  conjunctum 
est,  in  quft  do  eommunione  bononira  et  muUcruni  praeclpitur.  Hinc  tikium  univenam 
hoe  fignieolutu.  Quaiiiqium  in  vkinia  Cyrauruni  mpud  barbaru  Lib^M  genUs  mu- 
Uem  qnu!  raminnne*  fuiue  dorent  Hcmdotuc  et  alii ;  hhI  h{nc  iiemo  CyrctuicU  isiis 
commeatw  fldcm  addere  audcbii. 


VoT..  II.  No.  5. 


sN 


M4 


De  Titulia  Quibusdam  Snpp&sitie 


i  millc  et  novem,  quas  decern  regum  imperium  explevit,  a  patre 
ad  filium  cnntinua  seric  translatuin  (hoc  quo<|ue  similiter  atque 
aptid  Pifttonem).  Hi  prneter  Atlantem  sunt  Gadiru-n  I.  Ogyges 
I.  Hooranty  Dehher^  Ohannesy  cujus  nomen  Rignificat  Miseri- 

,  cordenty  quippe  qui  magna  mysteria  communionin  bononim 
(avi^iaiTMct)  instituerit,  piscis  formam  ille  vestitu  imitatua, 
quoties  celebrarct  mysteria",  Ogygeft  IL  Gadirwt  II.  Lah«M, 
qui  abolito  connubio  communionem  muHerum,  prius  in  mys- 
tmis  conclusam,  fecit  publicam,  ultima  Uko  Ogyges  HI. 
Practer  eos,  qui  cum  hoc  Ogyge  effugerunt  diluvium,  pauci 
Atlantic!  cum  quattuor  r^ulis  pervenerunt  in  oram  Libyae, 
quae  Tret  columnae  Jlerculis  vocantur,  ubi  Jtia^  If.  ab 
illis  est  dux  creatus:  a  quo  beue  distingucodus  Atlas  I. 
Neptuni  fiUus,  astronomiac  peritissimuB,  qui  in  montc  cc^- 
nomiui  solebat  Stellas  observarc,  "  Hacc  igitur  antiquissima  et 
verissima  philosophorum  Atlanticorum  et  Cyrenaicorum  Aris- 
tippeorum  origo  est,**  ait  Eumalus;  "de  quaquumjam  suffi- 
cientcr  dictum  sit,  fiuio  Iiic  scxtum  hunc  librum  historiarum 
majorum  nostrorum.^  Festivani  banc  de  Eimiali  Libycis,  iis- 
que,  quae  illis  coDtineri  dicuntur,  fabulam  taedet  refellere; 
nemo  cnim  crit,  quin  earn  temcre  et  imprudcntcr,  licet  baud 
itidocte,  Rctam  esse  pervideat :  ita  vero  ilia  cum  Atlantico 
lapide  conspirat,  ut  monstrum  utrumqueex  codem  natum  cero- 
bello  esse  }4{X)nte  pateat.  Su|>erest,  ut  quis  potissimus  harum 
facetiarum  auctur  sit,  paucis  quaeramus.  T)e  Connolo,  Rienrio, 
Aristone,  Pezzale  penes  quemcjue  judicium  esto;  Fortia  tan- 
tum  abest,  ut  deceptus  ab  aliis  existimari  possit,  ut  bistiionalis 
grcgis  patroDum  ducemque  referre  videatur.  Profecto  varia 
ct  muUiplici  et  recondita  eruditione  opus  erat^  ut  iis,  quae 
hucusque  coasideravimus,  atque,  ut  hoc  occupemus,  Cyre- 
naicia  titulis  fingendis  suppeditaretur  materia:  cui  rei  num 
Grongnetus  par  fuerit,  dubites  merito.  Non  magnopere  nota 
est  ilia  numerorum  signandorum  ratio,  qLiam  Cyreiuiicus  ti- 
tulus  bilinguis  et  bbri  Eumalei  oflerunt ;  sed  Fortiae  certe 
non  ignota  fuerit^  qui  de  arilbmetica,  de  quadratura  circuli, 


'<  Uaec  ex  rhiildaici*  fcbulii  petlu  esse  patet.     PoMcmuii  etiam  aliorum  commen- 

toram,  qu»e  ucm  rcimlimnSj  fonles  aliquot  dcntonntnirc :   nunc  lufliciat  dixiiwe,  ijni 

fumaleum  librum  cnnfitixil,  cum  nan  impentvm  fuUsc  historiantm  fabuloMruni,  (|uaa 

'  tx  Bono,  I'htlunc  Urblio,  Joanne  AraUla.  ChronEco  Pucbnli  et  libiii  simOibua  t«ae- 

mui,  Mdique  cum  imitaium  natt. 


AugusH  Boeckhii  Protu»io  Jcademica. 


46S 


de  agtroiiomiu  lihros  ediderit  ct  Aristarchi  opus  de  distantiis 
solis  et  lunae  Gallice  verterit.  In  chronologia  vero  ita  ver- 
satus  est,  ut  unus  ex  auctoribun  sit  Artis  data  proband! 
(L'ATt  de  vt^rifier  les  dates).  Turn  vero  geographica  et  hia- 
torica  scripsit  pcrmulta,  etiam  philulugica,  ut  Hipparchum 
qui  ferebatur  Flatonis  transtulit  Gallice.  Sed  iniprmiis  hue 
pertinent  ejus  Historia  Atlantidis^'  atque  HiBtoria  antiqua 
orbis  terrarum'^f  qua  etsi  etiam  Grongnetus  dicitur  delec- 
tatus  esse,  non  tanien  probabile  est  auctoris  deludendi  causa 
Grongnetum  haec  ex  iUo  potissimum  libro  finxisse  onmia: 
propius  vero,  Marchionem  lUustrissimum  suis  commentis  jocu- 
lariter  accommodasse  haec  ludibria.  Nam  in  ea  orhis  historia 
diluvium  Sinensis  Yao,  Noae,  Ogygis,  Atlanticum  deroon- 
stratur  unum  idemque  esse;  cui  rei  octavura  datur  volumcn 
et  ex  parte  inserviunt  falsa  ista  Atlantica;  nonum  volumcn 
historiam  et  theoriam  diluvii  Ogygis  et  Noae  et  submersioncm 
Atlantidis  pruponit ;  decimo  exhibetur  novum  systcma  prao- 
adamiticum :  septimo  Chalduicas  antiquitates,  Berosum  ct  An- 
nium  Viterbiensem  tractat,  dignam  aemulo  matenam>  et  in 
qua  perdisctre  urtem  poluerit.  Denique  Romae  de  moenibus 
Saturniis  et  Cyclopii.s  scripsit,  quae  Plioeiiicum  monibus 
condita  perhibet :  cui  sententiae  tuendae  Janus  iste  Eumalcus 
-succurrit.  Uujus  igitur  viri  clientes  videntur  Grongnetus 
et  Galea  esse  ;  utcrque  illi  Romae  conciliatus  est  privati  con- 
suetudinci  Grongnetoque  usus  est,  ut  is  mocnium  illomm 
formaa  in  ipsius  delinearet  usum.  Scd  Galea,  qucm  in  his 
rebus  non  versatum  magnopcre  dicit,  tantum  fotsas  istas 
epistolas  scripscrit;  Grongnetus  haud  dubie  falsas  delinea- 
vit  iuscriptioncs,  ct  Mclitcnsis  dialecti  usum  commodavit, 
nequc  cum  tucbitur  virorum  splcndidissimorum  auctorilas, 
qua  opem  ferrc  adjutori  conatur  Marchio.  Postremo  Graeca, 
quae  ex  eadem  prodiisse  olficiana  judicamus,  id  fere  genus 
dicendi  redolent  quo  cultiores  Graeci  nunc  utuntur.  ex  scri- 
ptoribus  ecdesiasticis  potissimum  formatum :  Graecum  igitur 
aliquem  a  Grongneto  esse  in  auxilium  vocatum,  non  videtur 
disBimile  veri. 

Verum  Atlanticas   nugas    nos    quidem    ab   oblivione    non 

'*  In  libro  cjui  *^  Anti4ult6t  et  moaumoits  du  d6puume«  do  Vaadiue"  T.  ii. 
"  "  lU^moltes  povr  suTvir  a  I'hUtoiic  anclcane  du  globe  tcntatrc,"    Pu.  I80t — 
18W.   10  T.  12." 


400 


De  Tiiulis  Quibusdnm  Suppoaitis 


Tindicasscmus,  nisi  ex  illis  pendcrct  judicium  de  Cyrenaicis 
titiiUs  fcrendum  :  quo  jam  licebit  brcvjter  defungi.  Et  pri- 
miim  hilingiiem  idem  Melitn  misit  geometm  tnilitaris,  qui 
Atlnnticae  fraudis  sociuR  est ;  eadem  in  illo  insignium  nays' 
ticorum  innania,  quae*  in  Atlantico  tituln.  Nee  mirum,  quod 
Eleusiniis  symbolis  utitur  societas  philosophorum  Cyrenaica ; 
nenipe  Eleusinia  condidisse  Ogygis  III.  regis  Atlantici  ne- 
potem,  Cyrenaicae  sectae  auclorem  fuisse  Atlantem  II.  Ogy- 
gisque  mysleria  Phoenicia  et  Eleusinia  ease  eadem  ac  Cy- 
renaica  Atlantica,  docet  Eumalus  Cyrenacus.  Turn  in 
Cyrenaica  inscriptione  biliugui  supra  est  Olympicus  annus 
notatuB,  prorsus  ut  in  Atlantico  Tib.  Sempronii  titido;  no- 
tarum  numeralium  in  Cyrenaico  adscitum  idem  gcauB  est 
quod  in  libri&  Eumali  numerandis  (AAIII  ct  ni)»  quum 
tamen  his  notis  librarii  post  Christianam  certc  epocham  non 
usi  sint  nisi  in  computandis  versibus,  quot  quisque  contine- 
ret  liber''.  Praetereu  Atlantici  monumenti  stellis  a  sinistra 
ad  devtram  adscriptae  litterae  sunt  lEHOHOYA  (Jehoovti) ; 
Cyrenaico  bilingui  praefixum  eat  lEOYA  {Jewa):  ita  enim 
legendum  esse,  non  Juda^  quod  GeseniuSf  nee  JahUy  quod 
Hamaker  putabant,  docct  nunc  alphabetum  a  Fortia  editum. 
Immo  vs.  hoc  alphabeto,  quod  Atlantici  tituli  causa  pro|X>- 
suit  Marchio,  expediri  demum  Cyrenaici  Fhoenicii  lectio 
potest,  quae  prius  ambigua  fuit ;  litterae  enim  in  utroque 
fere  eaedeui  sunt.  Quid  quod  Cyrenaicus  quoque  non  Phoe- 
nicia, sed  Mcliteusi  diatecto  eadem  qua  AtlanticuH  scriptus 
est  ^  Quam  rem  dcuuu  exainiuata  inscriptione  uuntiavit 
Gescnius,  subditiciani  nunc  utramque  Cyrcnaicam  judicans 
nobiscum.  Dcniquc  quae  i»  Eumali  libro  Cyrenaicis  tribuun- 
tur  praecepta  de  communionc  bonorum  ct  mulierum  et  institute 
communiter  vivendi,  ptirissimac  tranquillitatis  fonte,  ea  ipsa 
oommendat  titulus  bilinguis  atquc  a  mystagogis  rcpctit,  ut 
Eumalus  ad  myetagogum  Atlantem  rcttulit.  Scilicet  my^ 
teria  quacvis  Atlanticae  originis  esse  affatim  docuit  Eumalus. 
De  altcro  Cyrenaico  monumcnto,  crucigero  isto  Simoneo, 
quid  jam  multis  dicamus  ?  Melita  simul  cum  priori  hujus 
exemplum  misit  idem  geometra,  baud  imm^rito  Ingemosorum 
adscriptus  cohorli ;   vellemus  etiam  S'imonista  esset.     Dictionis 


"  Cr.  Okou.  dr.  Athcn.  T,  ii.  p.  161. 


Jugusti  Boeckhii  Proiuno  Jcademica,  467 

eodem  genere  ac  bilinguis  inscriptio,  hoc  est  recentiorum 
Graecorum  eniditorum  sermone,  Simoneus  iste  titulus  com- 
positus  est ;  doctrina  in  eo  conainenctatur  eadem,  et  Cyrenaicis 
antecessoribus  tribuitur,  quemadmodum  fecit  £umalus ;  nee 
deest  Satumus  mystagogus,  quern  nunc  demum  didicimus 
lanum  esse  Atlanticum,  Ogygionim  mysteriorum  in  Italia 
antistitem,  hoc  est  eorundem,  quae  Atlas  minor  propagavit 
in  Cyrenaicam. 

Nil  epemat  auriSy  nee  tamen  credat  statim, 

Ser.  Berolini  d.  viii.  m.  Jan.  a.  mdcccxxxii. 


MISCELLANEOUS  OBSERVATIONS. 


On  a  passage  of  the   Pkihctetes  of  Sophocles. 

FnOH   THB   ORRHAK   OP   WELCKEB. 

Yttk*  oavva^  aaa^St  ''Yttm  o   aXyetiVf 

evctitov,  evaiwVf  tova^" 

ofAfiaat  o  acreyoiv  raiw   aiy\av 

a  TeTOTat  Tuvvf. 

Tee  very  different  and  very  forced  interpretations  which 
the  lost  but  one  of  these  lines  has  occasioned,  without  having 
been  ever  rightly  explained,  have  arisen  solely  from  an  over- 
siglil  as  to  a  meaning  of  the  word  aiyXa,  which  is  wanting 
in  the  modern  lexicons  except  the  new  edition  of  Stephanus, 
though  the  Greek  lexicons  give  it,  and  which  nobody  knew 
or  guessed.  The  only  meaning  hitherto  thought  of  has  been 
that  of  splendour.  So  the  Scholiast  conceives  that  the  sleep 
into  which  Philoctetes  has  dropt,  is  splendour  and  light  to 
liim :  perhaps  as  something  salutary  :  though  this  would  con- 
tradict what  he  had  said  before;  for  that  it  is  the  same 
grammarian  who  is  proceeding  with  his  explanation,  is  clear 
from  the  transition  ToiauTtjv  Be  atyXriv.  It  is  scarcely  possible 
for  nn  interpretation  to  he  more  obscure,  puzzled,  and  faulty, 
tlian  the  one  he  gives ;  and  it  is  annexed  to  another  which 
is  likewise  erroneous.  *H  jcaxej^c  to  opaTiKup  (-rdtf^ 
aiyXav)  oirep  vvr  rjirXtorat  kqI  waj^eiTOu  (TeTaxai)  Trj  tou 
vTTvov  ap^Xw.  ToiavTTfv  oe  aiyXijv  ^tis  vvt/  TCTUTtH  arre^on 
TOis  ofifiaat,  Xe'yei  ce  tov  vwvov  tov  yevv/uievov  avri^  vapa- 
■^(piiniaf  ot  effTiv  avrtp  aiyXri  Kal  tpw^.  Musgrave  too  has 
explained  aiyXt}  by  icvametif  solatium,  which  is  sometimes  the 


On  a  passage  of  the  Philoctetes  of  Sophocles.       46<) 

meaning  of  <pw^.     Solger  gives  a  good  sense,  but  one  which 
is  not  contained  in  the  words :    Turn  affide  fnrm  fhe.  xleepers 
eyes  this  light  which   is  now  poured  out  over  them.     Butt- 
man  also  understands  the  light  of  day,    comparing  Homer''s 
aXX'   CTTt   vv^  oKoi)    TeTaTat    cftKoiai    ^porotat.       According 
to  him  the  chorus  desires  the  Genius   of   sleep,    as  dwelling 
in  the  eye,    to    withstand   the   light   and    ward   off  its  glare. 
To  this  it  has  already  been   ohjcctcd  that   ravvv  added   to  a 
word    expressing  day-light   would    he    supcrHuous,    and    that 
^fi/uuri  would  require  a  proposition.     It  may  be  added  that 
the  image  is  not  sufficiently  natural.     For  if  Sleep  is  dwelling 
in  the  eye,  it  is  already  closed  against   the  light :  and  it  is 
not  from   within  that   the  light  is  kept  back  ;    Sleep  repels 
,  it  from   without  with  his  outspread  wings,  or  in  some  other 
like    manner.       So    in    the    lUad    xiv.  S5t}:     ^-n-el    avr^  eyw 
firiKaKov  vep'i  xm/x   eKaXvyjra :   and  v^^Vfioi  oju^i^t/^eiy,   v.  253. 
Hermann  retracts  his  original  conjecture,  which  may  be  seen 
in    Erfurdfs   edition,    and    translates :     keep    before  his   eyes 
the  glare  which  is  now  spread  oner  them:  that  is,  no  glare, 
but    darkness :     and    this    explanation   has    satisfied    Seidler, 
Wundcr,    and    Schneider.       Tlie    conception,    which    is    the 
Kame  that  Wakefield  and  Erfurdt  sought  to  express  by  writing 
ayXvv,  is  certainly   the    right    one :    hut    the   sense   given    to 
the  words  would  not  suit  the   present   case,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  because  the  sight  of  Philoctetes  overpowered  by  sleep 
could  not  give  the  chorus  occasion  either   for  jefit  or  bitter 
irony  :  and  one  of  these  is  always  coupled  with  such  a  mode 
of  expression.      As   to  its  being   playful,    Hermann    himself 
(in  V.   1*29)  in  objecting  to  a  signification  defended   as  per 
acumen^    ob8er\'es :    acumen  xUud  non  esse   serice  orntumis. 
Beside  wliich,    the  language  of  the  chorus,  instead  of  being 
witty,  like  the  words  in  the  Phineus  of  Sophocles  :  ft\e<papo¥ 
KCKXeuTTai  y    ok  xo^fjXcioi/  9vpat :  or  those  in  the  Philoctetes 
849,   oXX'  w  Tti  'Al^*f  frapaKeifj-evos  op^,  would  be   only  af- 
fected, and  in  fact  tame.    Expressions  like  /icXa/i<^a€<r  «pe/5oy, 
ai'^\io9  X«/X7ra,  TV<p\ov  (}>eyy<vs,     have  a  different  character. 
It  is  more  correct  to  compare  them  with  €v  9Kortp  o-^oiaTOt 
(Ed.    R.   127^)    of  a   blind   man.       Whereas   they   evidently 
ought   to  be   distinguished   from   Ev<f>f}fx<K  /3o^,    Electr.   620. 
by  which  it  is    impossible   to   understand    silentium  :    \m\e%* 


«10 


MUvellaneoua  Observations, 


e  are  to  give  the  same  sense  to  the  passage  in  the  Choeph. 

J3 :  Vftiii  o  evaiPfS  yXwatrav  ev^r}uotf  (pcpeitfy  atyay 
'■i'  OTTOV  ^i  Kol  Xe^ety  to  Katpta.  What  can  bt?  clearer 
thaii  the  meaning  of  Clytemnestra,  who  wishing  to  offer  her 
sacrifice,  breaks  off  the  dispute  and  will  not  listen  any 
longer  tu  the  wurds  of  Klectra  (ot/x  eutptjfta)^  but  only  to 
cv<pjjuo¥  yXwcrtravy  and  reproaches  her  with  not  sufTering 
this  to  be  heard. 

All  tlie  ubscurity  of  our  passage  disappears  as  soon  as 
I've  observe  that  atyXtj  signiHes  a  bund,  which  is  supposed 
to  be  drawn  over  the  eyes  of  the  sleeper;  for  this  is  an  image 
naturally  suggested  by  the  common  and  literal  phrase  of 
shutting  the  eyes,  tegere  lumina  somrw.  A'iy\j}  does  not 
signify  a  band  in  general :  but  primarily  an  ornamental  band, 
one  glittering  with  gold  and  pearls  (Plin.  xxxiii.  12)  or  other 
precious  materials,  esjwcially  for  the  arm  or  the  foot,  just 
as  ^Xi^uii'  derived  its  name  from  the  luxurious  affluence  in- 
dicated by  it,  though  in  common  i^peech  the  derivation  was 
forgotten.  The  lexicographers  give  the  following  expla- 
nations of  aiyXt).  Lex.  Sangcrmann,  (Bckk.  Anccdot.  Gr. 
p.  .154)  :  aiyXtj — koi  tov  ^uyov  to  frtp'ifxeaov — Koi  yXiomv 
Se  Tt;  ovTttK  CKoXciTo  evtot  oe  <pa<Ti  cr/jtialvet  koI  tov  irepi- 
iroctov  KOijfxov  ij  TOV  dfjL<pioea  rj  axXw9  ^|/eXXlov^  trtjiuiivet 
ce  Kui  Ttjv  Triorjv  >)  alyXi)  u>9  "rrap  E.'niya.p/J.w.  Pollux  v. 
100^  of  articles  of  female  dress :  tllujs  Se  xal  wepl  xots  ToaU 
'K€ptu(pvpta^  Tcpi-Tre^iaj  Tre^m,  xai  aiyXriV  Kat  •jreotfv  xal 
wepiaKeXida^.  Hesych.  AiyXt}\ioo}v-  ^(poKX^  Ttjpti  ytrwv, 
Kai  'n'ectj  irapa  Kirf^^ap/iM  ev  BaV^aty.  From  what  has 
been  already  said  it  is  clear  that  this  has  been  rightly  altered 
into  atyXttf  vXi^wi/,  and  that  the  reading  yiTwv  arose  through 
mistake  out  of  -^i^tDVt  and  ought  therefore  to  be  corrected 
;^XtSwir,  though  it  has  been  very  lately  repeated  after  Brunck 
in  three  different  reprints  of  the  fragments  of  Sophocles,  none 
of  which  is  worthy  of  the  present  state  of  literature.  Pollux 
observes  that  there  were  several  expressions  in  use  signifying 
at  once  a  band  for  the  arm,  and  a  band  for  the  foot ; 
and  he  specifies  aV^^cvy  and  ;^XtCaJf;  which  is  natural 
enough,  since  the  meaning  of  these  terms  is  general,  not 
confined  like  that  of  (ipaxiovtovt  Woi;,  S:c.  AtyXrj  belongs 
to  the  same  class,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  Sophocles  was 


On  a  Passage  uf  the  Phiiorteies  of  Sophttvien.       47^ 

able  to  iraiisfer  it  to  a  band  for  the  eyes.  At  the  same 
time  usage  is  always  capricious  in  things  of  this  sort :  and 
the  gloss  in  Hesychius,  unless  yXilwv  has  been  repeated 
by  accident,  seems  to  imply  that  aiy\7)  was  used  in  the 
Tereus  of  Sophocles  for  a  bracelet,  while  Epichannus  gave 
the  same  nnnic  to  a  band  for  the  leg.  It  is  enough  to  know 
that  the  general  meaning  of  0*7X1;  is  established  by  express 
testimony  on  the  authority  of  Sophocles. 

The  explanation  wc  have  given  of  017X1}  affects  that 
of  the  epithet  ct^ai/V.  For  when  we  have  Sleep  set  before 
ua  in  a  personal  shape  and  attitude,  laying  his  band  over 
the  eyes  of  the  sufferer,  and  according  to  the  wish  of  the 
chorus  keeping  it  fixed  there,  we  cannot  let  the  epithet 
et)uryc  retain  the  general  signification  of  cJ^evi/t,  benevolent, 
which  is  given  to  it  in  the  Scholia,  and  has  only  been  adopted 
for  want  of  a  better.  Its  proper  sense,  vtnrvauv^  ei/r/i/f/uor, 
leniter  spirann,  will  now  involuntarily  remind  us  of  winged 
Sleep,  VirgiKs  volttcris  Somnus.  In  representations  of  Sleep 
which  exhibit  him  as  he  is  here  conceived,  as  the  dispenser 
of  (.lumber,  we  find  wings,  of  the  butterfly  or  the  eagle', 
on  his  shoulders,  and  his  temples  are  sometimes  iledged  aa 
well  as  his  shoulders,  and  sometimes  they  alone.  Zoega, 
who  in  his  Bassirilievi  Tav.  <}3  has  treated  the  various  con- 
ceptions of  sleep  with  a  diligence  that  nothing  escapes,  and 
at  the  same  time  with  the  most  lun)inoiis  discrimination, 
and  in  the  most  pleasing  order,  adduces  the  works  of  this 
class  at  p.  207 — SIO.  He  is  inclined  to  consider  what  have 
been  taken  for  butterfly's  wings  as  those  of  the  bat,  and 
hence  to  refer  them  to  nijfht :  I  should  rather  believe  that 
they  contain  an  allusion  to  the  ordinary  conception  of  Psyche, 
and  intimate  that  the  soid  continues  to  stir  even  in  sleep. 
Elsewhere,  in  a  dissertation  not  yet  printed  on  the  winged 
deities  (in  answer  to  Winkelman),  Zoega  explains  the 
wings  of  Sleep  generally,  like  those  of  Night,  from  the  pro- 
perty of  covering  and  concealing.  Goethe,  in  his  Iphigcnia, 
attributes  shadowing  wings  to  the  dim  state  of  uncer- 
tainty : 


^  ThoM  of  the  em^le  probably  refer  to  the  unirers«I  doniioion  of  Sleep,  who  U 

'^awiandriafl,  uid  thercfnrc  hu  TlattBin  for  hu  cooMrt. 

Vol.  II.  No.  :,.  3  O 


472 


MigceUaneou4  Observatione. 


Speak  plainer,  that  my  thoughts  be  taskM  no  longer. 
Uncenainty  in  cvcr-thickening  folds 
Waves  her  dark  pinions  round  my  beating  head°. 
I  am  not  sure  that  different  ideas  may  not  have  l>eon  asso- 
ciated with  the  wings  of  Sleep.  I  do  not  however  make 
this  remark  on  account  of  the  passage  in  the  Philoctetea, 
since  Sophocles  as  a  poet  was  not  confined  to  the  sphere 
of  plastic  art.  Or  may  we  expect  to  find  winged  Muse« 
in  Bculpture  or  painting,  because  in  Pindar  the  Victor  is 
bom  alufl  on  the  wings  of  the  Pierides  ?  or  shall  we  l>elieve 
that  Dice  and  Themis  or  /Edos  wore  painted  with  wings, 
because  various  poets  designated  the  rapidity  of  their  ope- 
ration by  a  like  image.  It  i.**  possible  that  Sophocles,  in 
speaking  of  the  gentle  breath  with  which  Sleep  is  invoked 
to  approach  and  bless  Philoctetes  (ci/mwr),  may  only  have 
been  thinking  of  the  burning  pangs  which  Sleep,  as  he  floated 
over  the  sufferer,  was  to  fan  away  with  the  cooling  motion 
of  his  wings.  This  is  very  delicately  intimated.  But  it 
is  a  peculiarity  of  Sophocles,  that  he  not  unfrequently  half 
conceals  his  images  in  this  manner  under  the  conciseness  of 
his  diction,  and  compels  the  imagination  to  supply  them,  «a 
other  writers  make  a  like  demand  on  the  logical  or  gramma- 
tical understanding.  In  many  passages  of  this  difficult  poet, 
which  might  serve  to  shew  how  far  we  are  from  having 
brought  the  interpretation  of  his  works  to  its  full  muturitv, 
this  jieculinritv  constitutes  the  knot  which  still  awaits  a  satis- 
factory  solution. 

*  Act  111.  Sc.  I.    Sprich  deutlvcher,  daut  Lch  oicht  Iteiiger  siiuie. 
Die  IJngcwtfiffhcit  KchUcfc  mir  tsuKudfacltifc 


C.  T. 


fM  the  Months  of  thr  Roman  Lunar  Year.       473 


II. 

Ofi  the  Months  of  the  Roraan  Lunar  Year. 

Mackouivs,  Saturnalia  i.  13.  states,  that  Numa,  through 
a  superiititiuus  reverence  for  odd  nutubers,  made  the  lunar 
year  of  the  Uomuns  to  consist  of  355  days ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  made  each  of  the  months,  except  Pebruarvi  to  con- 
sist of  an  odd  number  of  days.  Numa,  in  honoreni  iniparis 
numeri  secrctum  hoc  et  ante  l*ytIiagoram  parturiente  natura 
unum  adjecit  diom  quern  Januario  dedit;  ut  tarn  in  anno 
quum  in  menaibus  singulii)  pra'ter  unum  Fcbniarium  iuipar 
numerus  servaretur.  He  then  gives  the  number  of  days 
in  each  month:  in  March,  May,  July,  October,  H}  each;  in 
February,  SS ;  and  in  each  of  the  rest  «y.  Now  it  appears 
to  me  that  by  investigating  the  number  of  days  in  each 
month  of  the  old  Roman  year,  we  may  arrive  at  the  explana- 
tion of  the  division  of  the  months  by  Calends,  Nones,  and 
Ides,  which  seems  at  first  sight  so  arbitrary  and  puzzling. 

That  the  four  months  named  above  had  always  31  days, 
and  so  two  days  more  than  the  other  months  of  the  year, 
appears  from  the  circumstance  that  their  Nones  and  Ides 
were  placed  two  days  later  than  the  Nones  and  Ides  of  the 
other  months.  Their  Nones  were  on  the  7th  day;  their 
Ides  on  the  15th.  In  the  remaining  months,  the  Nones 
were  on  the  ^th ;  the  Ides  on  the  I3th.  Even  in  the 
other  months,  to  which  31  days  were  assigned  in  the  Ju- 
lian Calendar,  January,  August,  and  December,  the*  Nones 
continued  to  be  on  the  5th;  the  Ides  on  the  l.^th:  beyond 
doubt  because  they  used  to  be  so  before.  In  the  lunar  year 
therefore,  or  in  Numa''8  Calendar,  as  it  wa-s  called,  there 
was  in  every  month  an  interval  of  8  days  from  the  Nones 
to  the  Ides;  and  ft  complete  period  of  1 6  days  from  the 
Ides  to  the  end  of  the  month :  except  that  in  February 
this  last  period  wanted  one  day.  Now  the  religious  year, 
which  the  early  Ilomanji  borrowed  from  the  Etruscans,  and 
which  is  called  the  year  of  Romulus,  consisted  of  31H  days, 
and  was  divided  into  SH  jjeriods  of  8  days  each :  and  the 
lost  days  of  these  periods  were  marked  as  public  days  of  pe- 
culiar   solemnity    (see    Niebuhr,    Vol.   i.  p.  273.)     I    conceive 


47* 


Miecellaneoxtv  Obaervatiofw. 


that  the  diWsion  of  the  months  by  Nones,  Ides,  and  Calends, 
arose  from  the  attempt  to  preserve  this  ancient  division  in 
combination  with  Umar  months  and  a  lunar  year.  £ach 
month  was  supposed  to  contain  four  j>eriods  of  8  days;  but 
as  this  would  have  made  the  months  loo  long,  the  first  of 
the  four  periods,  from  the  Calends  to  the  Nones,  was  arbi- 
trarily shortoned ;  in  March,  May,  Jnlv,  and  October,  by 
one  day ;  in  tlie  rest  of  the  mouths  by  three  days.  Never- 
theless, the  last  day  of  the  first  period  retained  its  signiticant 
name,  Nonfft,  the  innth  Hay;  that  is,  according  to  the 
Latin  idiom,  by  which  lx)th  extremes  of  any  period  urc 
counted  in.  This  curtailment  ai)brds  the  reason  of  the 
solemnity,  the  account  of  winch  is  preserved  by  M^crobius 
(Sat.  I.  15);  that  the  pontifls,  after  observing  the  new  Moon 
{Jana  Novella)^  gave  notice  to  the  people  on  what  day 
the  Nones -vrere  to  be  reckoned.  Thev  knew  the  length 
of  the  other  constant  periods  without  notice. 

With  respect  to  the  lloniulian  year,  which  is  said  to 
have  been  divided  into  ten  months,  I  would  tilterly  reject, 
aa  Niebuhr  seems  to  do  (Vol.  i.  p.  ii73),  the  account  of  Ma- 
crobius  and  Solinuis,  by  which  they  make  out  the  304  days 
by  assigning  ii]  days  to  the  four  months  already  named,  and 
SO  days  to  each  of  the  others.  This  aUotment  is  inconsistent 
with  a  division  into  eight  day  periods.  If  the  religious  year 
were  divided  into  months  at  all,  they  ])robnbly  consisted  in 
general  of  S9  days;  and  then,  tlierc  must  either  have  been 
one  of  only  16  days,  or  two  of  24  days  each.  Plutarch, 
Numa  c.  18.  says  that  some  months  consisted  of  fewer  than  20 , 
days,  while  some  were  extended  to  J.>,  and  others  even  to  more. ! 

Before  I  quit  the  subject,  I  will  observe  that  there  was 
a  certain  symmetry  in  the  moile  in  which  the  months  of  29 
days  in  the  old  lumu'  year  were  lengthened  out  in  Julius 
Cafsar's  solar  year ;  which  will  Ik  best  understood  by  inspection. 

31  days. 


•i\ 


January 

April 

.so  days. 

June 

30 

August 

Septemlwr 

:jo 

November 

ito 

December 

3\ 


U.  M. 


Misveitaneoun  Obaervaiions^* 


475 


III. 

Notice  of  the  third  Volume  of  Niehuhr'a  Roman  History. 

The  lovers  of  llnnmn  history?  and  admirers  of  Niebuhr' 
had  looktfd  forward  with  lively  interest  to  that  portion  of  his 
work,  which  was  to  embrace  the  period  following  that  with 
which  the  second  volume  of  the  first  edition  dosed.  The 
elaborate  and  abstruse  investigations  wliich  tracod  the  early 
history  of  the  constitution  were  not  adapted  to  the  taste  of  all 
readers;  yet  many  who  either  felt  little  concern  in  their  results, 
or  could  not  couimand  the  patience  necessary  for  following 
them,  would  have  been  very  thankful  for  the  new  light  which 
the  author's  sagacity  and  learning  might  have  been  expected 
to  throw  on  those  parts  of  his  subject,  with  which  they  were 
more  familiar,  or  which  appeared  to  them  more  attractive: 
while  those  who  had  no  less  keenly  enjoyed  the  researches 
thcniKelves  by   which  he  had  been  led  to  his  immortal  disco- 


I 


'  I  mi8t  that  tbwc  two  classes  of  i)«nion»  m*y  still  be  coupW  tn^tctticr  wlthom 
impropriety,  thoirgh  the  critic  who  reviewed  Nicbuhr'i  work  in  ibe  102od  mimber  of 
Uie  KdUibur^h  Review  Kppcim  to  tatJnuiu:  that  ■  reverence  for  Ronmn  story  and 
Roman  imutuiion])  U  not  convifitenc  with  a  similar  feellnf;  toward  Niebuhr.  But 
perhap*  the  writer  did  not  mfan  this  to  be  taken  Keriouiily,  at  leatii  by  cTcrybody.  h 
SMniH  more  probable  that  a»  he  more  than  once  betrays  a  lurking  eoiuciousncts  of  his 
own  incompcicace  for  the  taak  he  had  underuikcn — of  which  a  pretty  atnuig  proof, 
though  a  Tcry  minute  Bpecittien,  was  |{ivai  in  No.  1  of  this  Museum,  p.  1^ — he  in- 
tended nothing  more  by  his  concluding;  paradox  than  a  playful  coufcsiioD,  which 
thoae  who  knew  him  would  easily  undcntand,  and  which  might  even  be  divined  by 
othcn  wttltout  any  extraorditury  ugacity.  Thus  interpnted,  he  uiay  be  supposed  to 
aayi  "Niebuhr  is  said  to  have  dcvnted  the  greater  pan  of  his  life  to  the  study  of 
RomaQ  history ;  and  it  is  dioll  enough  thai  1,  who  care  nothing  about  the  subject,  and 
know  nntbinf;  atmit  biti  work  except  what  I  hare  picked  up  in  skinitning  over  a  few 
pages  of  a  translation,  sluiuid  have  been  pmnouncint;  a  judgment  upon  both!"  In 
*uggeatiiig  this  explanation,  however,  I  do  not  mean  to  defend  the  writer's  conduct: 
which,  though  it  may  have  been  a  ttource  of  aniunenicnt  to  his  friends  who  were  in  the 
waei,  was  Ml  respectful,  nor  indeed  just  toward  the  public.  Nor  should  I  hare 
alluded  to  a  production  of  which  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  speak  with  g^vity,  but  that 
I  wished  tn  ofler  a  word  of  praise  and  congratulation  to  the  Kdiior  of  the  Edinbtirgll 
Review.  Every  person  in  his  situation,  when  he  orders  a  piece  of  criticism,  la  liable  to 
be  DOW  and  then  taken  io  by  a  cootiterfeit  anicle.  In  the  present  case  the  Editor  hw 
made  the  oiost  honourable  and  satifffaciory  amendt  for  the  imposition  which  he  was  the 
involuntATy  instrument  of  practisin/t  upon  the  public.  He  has  put  the  same  subject 
into  the  hands  of  a  totally  different  person :  one  who,  beside  the  ffntt  advantage  of 
having  read  (he  work  he  professes  to  review,  posaesses  the  capacity  of  understanding  It 
and  appreciaiing  lis  iiicrlts :  imd  who  has  ihus  been  enibled,  instead  of  a  frothy  dc- 
rUniation,  10  give  the  public  a  clear  and  iiisiructive  account  of  its  contenis. 


S^isveUaneous  Observntioru. 


vcrics,  than  tlic  precious  fruits  produced  by  them,  ulill  anli- 
ci|)a(cd  witli  eagerness  n  new  kind  of  jileasure  and  instruction, 
in  accompanying  him  through  the  remaining  stages  of  his 
career.  They  longed  to  see  how  the  same  great  master,  wjio, 
with  Huch  wonderful  art,  had  no  often  restored  tlie  obliterated 
form  of  institutions  and  events  by  the  help  of  scanty  and 
widely  scattered  fragments,  would  work  up  the  rich  materials 
with  which  the  later  period  supplied  him :  how  he  who  had 
shown  so  vivid  a  perception  of  the  beauty  of  the  ancient 
legends,  would  conceive  and  reproduce  the  grandeur  of  Home''s 
authentic  history :  how  the  same  pencil  which  gave  life  to  the 
minutest  objects  that  it  touched,  would  portray  }>ersons  and 
scenes  fitted  by  their  native  dignity  and  importance  to  rouse 
even  tlie  most  torpid  imagination :  and  they  desired  to  hear 
the  same  voice  which  had  drawn  so  many  salutary  warnings 
from  the  struggles  of  Ronie*s  infant  libL-rly,  read  the  great 
lessuDs  contained  in  the  story  uf  its  decay  and  its  extinction. 
The  author  himself  sympathized  with  this  feeling  of  his  most 
enlightened  admirers :  and  in  the  consciousness  of  powers 
which  had  not  yet  found  full  room  for  their  noblest  kind  of 
exercise,  became  almost  impatient  lo  enter  upon  the  broader 
and  brighter  field  that  lay  before  him :  where  he  should  meet 
Machiavel  and  Montesquieu  upon  their  own  ground.  He 
expresses  this  eagerness  in  his  last  preface,  where  after  men- 
tinning  the  different  projwrtion  that  his  narrative  was  to  bear 
to  his  dissertations  in  the  ensuing  volume,  which  was  to  go 
down  to  the  second  Punic  war,  he  adds :  '*  having  felt  inte- 
rested and  animated  by  what  I  had  already  written  I  rejoiced, 
al  the  time  wheij  it  seemed  that  the  completion  of  the  re- 
mainder could  not  be  far  off,  in  the  prospect  of  having  here- 
after to  represent  and  portray  men  and  events.*" 

Under  the  calamity  which  overclouded  this  prospect  and 
(lisappointed  so  many  wishes,  it  was  still  a  coniiolatinn  to 
learn  that  Mime  remains  of  this  mighty  genius  were  _left  be- 
hind, which  might  at  least  enable  posterity  in  some  degree 
to  estimate  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  loss  they  had  sus- 
tained in  his  premature  departure.  The  tran.slators  of  the 
Jast  edition  were  authoriiced  to  inform  the  public,  that  there 
had  been  found  among  Niebuhr^s  manuscripts  a  contuuious 
history  from  the  dictatorship  of  Publilius,  where  the  original 


Notice  of 


Jiebithis  Roman  History.       4/7 


second  volume  closed,  down  to  the  beginning  nf  the  first 
Punic  war,  written  out  for  the  Press  ten  or  twelve  years  ago: 
and  that  this,  along  with  the  corrifctiuns  made  in  (he  latter 
part  of  the  original  Kecund  volume,  embracing  the  period  from 
the  promulgation  of  the  Licinian  laws  to  the  dictatorship  of 
PubUlius^  liad  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  Savigny,  and  wa-; 
expected  to  be  speedily  published. 

The  fliird  voltime  arrived  in  this  countr\'  some  weeks 
back  :  biU  the  editor's  preface  lias  not  yet  been  received. 
When  it  appears  it  will  be  accompanie*!  by  an  index  which 
has  perhaps  l>een  the  cause  of  the  delay.  It  will  probably 
aiFord  stinie  interesting  information  almut  the  state  of  the 
author's  manuscripts,  which  appear  to  contain  more  than  was* 
at  first  expected.  In  the  mean  time  a  brief  account  of  the 
contents  of  the  third  volume  may  be  not  unacceptable  to  many 
of  our  readers.  It  will  be  ctmfined  to  two  points:  a  state- 
ment of  the  relation  in  which  that  part  of  tlie  volume  which 
corresponds  to  the  latter  lialf  of  the  second  ia  the  first  edition, 
stands  to  the  original :  and  an  enumeration  of  the  subjects 
peculiar  to  the  new  volume,  which  may  enable  the  reader  to 
judge  of  the  proportion  which  the  narrative  bears  to  the 
antiquarian  disquisitions. 

The  volume  opens  with  a  chapter  on  the  Licinian  bills. 
The  original  chapter  on  the  same  subject  was  interrupted  bv 
one  on  the  agrarian  institutions,  which  is  now  omitted  for  the 
reasons  mentioned  in  Vol.  ir.  p.  fil7  (Transl.)  In  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  l)ills  themselves,  that  relating  to  the  domain  i^ 
now  placed  second,  instead  of  l>eing  preceded,  as  in  ed.  I. 
by  that  concerning  the  Keepers  of  the  Sibylline  books,  which 
is  distinguished  as  a  preparatory  measure  from  the  three  prin- 
cipal bills,  and  is  set  in  a  new  and  a  clearer  light.  The  refu- 
tation of  the  vulgar  story,  which  attributed  the  conduct  of 
Liciniu!)  to  tiie  influence  of  female  vanity,  has  been  retouched 
and  strengthened.  The  wisdom  shown  in  the  comprehensive 
character  of  his  legislation  is  more  distinctly  p*iinted  out :  and 
the  nature  of  tlie  difficulties  which  he  had  to  encounter,  and  of 
the  causes  that  contributed  to  his  success,  is  now  for  the  first 
time  fully  and  luminously  explained.  The  advantages  of  the 
consular  over  the  decemviral  form  of  government  for  the  inte- 
rest of  the  plebeians  arc  also  made  more  palpable.    On  the  other 


478 


Misceilaneou*  Observations. 


hand  Niebuhr,  though  restless  in  the  pursuit  of  truth,  was  not 
torineutcd  with  the  feverish  fastidiousness  of  a  KaKt^oT€)(Vo9. 
The  argument  with  which  he  supplies  Licinius  to  meet  Livy''s 
partial  objection,  could  scarcely  have  been  made  more  forcible 
either  in  thought  or  expression,   and  accordingly  it   has  un- 
dergone no  other  alteration   than   the  transposition  of  a  few 
Bcntenccs.      The  provisions  of  the  agrarian  bill  are  repeated 
with  scarcely    any  chaiigf,  but    with  some  additional   confir- 
mation^  and   some  interesting  illustrations  derived  from   the 
author's  personal  familiarity  with  the  existing  state  of  agricul- 
ture in  the  llonian  territory.     Still  more  deserving  of  attention 
are   some   remarks  on   the   change  of  circumstances  through 
which  the  same  measure  which  in   the  time  of  Licinius   was 
'■purely  wise,  just,  and  beueficentf  became  in  the  hands  of  a 
far  more    virtuous  patriot,  the  elder  Gracchum  doubtful  in 
its   policy,  calamitous  in   its  consequences.      The  view  taken 
fin   the   5rst  edition    of    the    third  bill,    that  relating  to  the 
adjustment  between   debtors  and  creditors,   remains  in  suIk 
atance  the  same :  only  the  opinion  originally  exprest  that  no 
'laws  had  hitherto  been  enacted  against  usury  is  now  retracted 
on  grounds  subsequently  explained.     But  there  is  a  very  im- 
,  portant  variation  in  the  description  of  the  struggle  by  which 
[the  bills  at  length  became  law:  a  fragment  of  the  Capitoline 
|,^asti  suggests  an  entirely  new  explanation  of  the  threatened 
fine  which  overcame  the  opposition  of  Camillus. 

The  next  chapter,   On   the   new  citrule  dxgniiies  of  the 
year  3Si,    contains  several   important   enlargements  and   cor- 
rections of  that   which  discusse<l  the  same  subject  in  the  first 
eil. ;    and  in   particular    Livy's  account  of  the   curule  aidile- 
Lahip's  being  thrown   open    to   both  orders    is   shown    by   the 
[strongest  evidence   to  be  altogether  erroneous.     The  foUow- 
'ing  chapter  On   the  domestic  history  down  to  the  compiete 
establishment  of  the  plebeian  consulship,  has  undergone  few 
alterations:  the  most  important  is  the  distinction   now  intro- 
iduced  between  the  opposition  of  the  senate  and  that  of  the 
Patres  to  the  plebeian  cause.     The  original  chapter,  On  the 
uncial  rate  of  interest,   has  been   incorporated  with  the  fol- 
lowing one  which   related  the  occasion   and    consequences  of 
the  insurrecliuii  or   mutiny  of  408    (+13).     With    regard    to 
the  former  subject  the  statement  of  Tacitus  is  now  admitted 


Nntice  of  Vol-   ///.  of  Niehuhr'n  Roman  History.    470 

and  roconciled  *ilh  Livy**:  in  other  respects  the  Hrgmncnt 
and  conclusion  are  unchanged:  but  the  history  of  the  mutiny 
has  been  remodelled,  and  its  causes  are  more  clearly  explained. 
In  the  next  chapter  which  embraces  the  Military  history  from 
S%\  (385))  to  40()  (410,  Livy's  account  of  the  Gallic  inroads 
at  the  end  of  the  fourth  and  the  beginning  of  the  following 
century  is  more  decidedly  prcferrett  to  that  of  Polybius :  and 
the  history  of  the  Hcrnican  and  Etruscan  wars  of  the  same 
period  is  enriched  with  some  additional  facts.  Much  mure 
important  additions  and  corrections  have  been  intrtniuced  into 
the  chapter  on  the  confeileration  between  Rome  and  Latium, 
which  gives  a  totally  different  account  of  the  extent  of  the 
new  Latin  Ktate,  and  a  new  explanation  of  the  obscure  allu- 
wion  in  Livy  vm.  5:  rolonias  quoq^te  t'estrtM  Lntinnm  R^ 
mano  prtstulhise  imperium.  The  dissertation  orij^inally  in- 
cluded in  this  chapter,  On  the  ancient  form  of  the  Roman 
legioti,  is  now  separated  from  it  and  stands  in  an  entirely  new 
shape  by  itself  under  the  title :  On  the.  eariietit  cnngfUiUimi 
of  the.  manipnliir  legion.  In  the  fnlhiwing  nnrrntive  of  the 
first  Sanmite  war  the  most  material  change  consists  in  the 
description  of  the  Samnite  constitution,  and  the  explanation 
of  the  causes  of  enmitv  between  C!apua  and  the  Samnite 
mountaineers.  The  history  of  the  war  itself,  a  beautiful 
specimen  of  Niebuhr's  powers  in  this  kind  of  writing,  has 
received  but  a  few  slight  touches :  but  we  now  read  with  a 
melancholy  interest  a  note,  written,  as  the  editor  informs  us, 
in  the  summer  of  16:29,  in  which  the  hmg  and  glorious  mili- 
tary career  of  M.  Valerius  is  compared  with  that  of  the 
Nestor  of  German  poetry,  to  whom  Niebuhr  expresses  a  hope 
that  he  may  still.be  able  to  dedicate  his  finished  history :  little 
foreboding  that  before  this  tribute  of  gratitude  and  veneration 
should  meet  the  public  eye,  the  lips  which  offered  it  as  well  as 
the  ears  for  which  it  was  intended  would  be  closed  in  deatli. 

Tn  the  next  chapter.  On  the  Latin  war,  the  substance 
of  the  narrative  remains  unaltered ;  but  the  supposition  that 
the  Volscians  were  included  in  the  I>at]n  confederation  before 
the  conclusion  of  the  Samnite  war  Iwving  been  abandoned, 
the  original  account  of  the  commencement  of  the  Latin  war 
which  was  founded  upon  it  has  been  corrected :  the  rHntions 
in  which  the  various  Volscian  states  henceforth  stood  to  Rome 
Vol.  1L   No.  5.  .S  P 


480 


Miscettaneonn  Obnervatiofu. 


and  Latium  an-  now  differently  slated ;  and  the  feelings  ex- 
cited at  Home  b)'  the  Latin  claims  arc  more  clearly  explained. 
Another  interesting  alteration  is  the  correction  of  Livy's 
erroneous  statement  (viit.  14.)  as  to  the  franchise  conferred 
on  Aricia,  Noinentuni,  and  t*ediim.  Thii«,  with  the  communi- 
cation of  a  topographical  discovery  made  by  the  author  at 
Rome,  which  determines  the  jwsitiun  of  the  Rostra  nova,  and 
leads  to  some  interesting  conclusions  with  regard  to  the  form 
of  the  old  Rostra,  is  the  principal  fruit  we  reap  from  the  new 
chapter  on  this  subject.  But  the  following  one,  On  the 
Publilian  lawsy  has  been  entirely  remodelled,  and  retains 
little  more  than  the  title  of  the  original  one.  It  appears 
from  a  note  of  the  editor  in  a  subsequent  ]>age  to  represent 
the  author's  latest  views  uf  this  obscure  and  important 
(question. 

Here  then*  at  page  I74-,  that  portion  of  the  new  volume 
which  relates  to  subjects  treated  of  in  the  first  edition  ends. 
With  res[>ect  to  the  remainder  we  cannot  perhaps  communi- 
cate the  information  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  notice  to 
give,  better  tfian  by  exhibiting  at  one  view  the  titles  of  the 
chapters,  with  the  number  of  pages  occupied  by  each,  and 
then  subjoining  a  few  explanatory  remarks. 

Domestic  History  down  to  the  Caudine  peace,  p.  174. 

Alexander  of  Epirus  181. 

Foreign  relations  down  to  the  second  Samnite  war  Id^. 

The  second  Samnite  war  2]-*. 

Relations  between  Rome  and  the  nations  bordering  on 
Samnium  after  the  peace  30<). 

The  Etruscan  wars  clown  to  the  beginning  of  the  third 
Samnite  war  320. 

Domestic  history  from  the  Caudine  peace  down  to  the 
third  Samnite   war  3SH. 

Cn.  Flavius3()7. 

The  Censorship  of  Q.  Fabius  and  P.  Decius  37+. 

The  Ogulnian  law  -tog. 

Various  occurrences  of  the  same  period  4.13. 

The   third    Samnite    war,    and    the    others   of   the  wme ' 
period  4 Hi. 

Domestic  history  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  Samnite 
war  down  to  the  I.ucanian  4-76. 


yotiix  of  Vol.  /If.  of  iViVft?*A»'V  Roman  Hinfortj-      4B1 

Various  occurrences  of  the  same  period  495. 
The  Etruscan  and  Gallic  wars  '1^)7- 

The  Lucanian,  Bruttian,   Fourth  Samnite,  and    Tarcntinc 
wars  506.     Epinis  and  Pyrrhus  525, 

The  Koman  and  Macedonian  Tactics  543. 

The  war  with  Pyrrhus  .553. 

Entire  subjugation  of  Italy,  and  the  political  rights  of  the 
Italian  allien  6n. 

Domestic   history    and   miscellaneous   occurrenceB  of   the 
period  from  the  Lucanian  to  the  first  Punic  war  6*1. 

The  first  Punic  war  fi57 — 732. 

On  the  greater  part  of  the  titles  in  this  list  we  need  say 
nothing  for  the  purpose  of  rousing  the  reader's  curiosity,  and 
indeed  our  limits  confine  us  to  the  simple  object  already  an- 
nounced. We  may  however  express  our  belief,  that  Niebuhr 
will  be  found  to  rise  with  his  theme,  and  that  the  present 
volume  contains  sjH'ciuiens  of  historical  eloquence  which  will 
bear  a  comparison  with  the  masterpieces  of  ancient  and  modem 
times.  These  have  probably  lost  little  or  nothing  in  not  having 
received  the  author's  finishing  touches.  What  is  much  more 
to  be  deplored  is,  tliat  the  narrative  is  not  complete  down  to 
the  end  of  the  period  which  it  comprehends.  There  is  a 
chasm  in  the  history  of  the  first  Punic  war,  which  in  fact 
ends  with  the  occupation  of  mount  Hercte  (Monte  Pcllegrino) 
by  Hamilcar:  on  the  remaining  years  of  the  war  we  have  only 
the  heads  of  the  intended  narrative.  It  is  however  a  great 
consolation  for  this  loss,  that  we  have  the  conclusion  of  the 
chapter,  including  remarks  on  the  general  consequences  of 
the  war,  and  on  the  constitution  of  Sicily  as  a  Roman  pro- 
vince, together  with  a  short  sketch  of  the  relations  in  which 
tlie  Italian  allies  stood  to  Rome  at  the  end  of  the  war.  This 
last  is  the  more  valuable  on  account  of  another  chasm  which 
occurs  at  the  close  of  the  chapter  on  the  political  rights 
of  the  Italian  allies,  where  the  author  broke  off  just  as  he 
was  about  to  enter  upon  a  description  of  their  consti- 
tution— the  most  mortifying  blank,  as  the  editor  truly  ob- 
serves, in  the  whole  work.  On  the  other  hand  in  the  chap- 
ters relating  to  the  domestic  history  wc  have  great  reason  to 
regret  that  they  did  not  receive  the  corrections  and  enlarge- 
ments which  would  have  represented  Niebuhr'*s  last  views  on 


4a2 


Mi9eel$anemts  Obven^ttfioHs. 


[many  interesting  points.  Thus  for  instance  in  the  cliapler 
cm  the  domestic  history  from  the  beginning  f>f  the  second 
fismiiite  war  to  the  Liicanian,  we  find  it  ul>»erve<l  that  the 
import  of  the  Publilian  laws  can  scarcely  be  determined  with 
any  degree  of  certainty  from  the  sources  of  information  at 
present  known  to  us:  an  expression  wliich,  as  the  editor  ob- 
wjrven,  wouid  undoubtedly  have  been  modified  in  a  rcrision 
of  the  chapter,  since  a  more  decided  and  precise  opinion  is 
giren  on  the  subject  both  in  the  second  volume  (in  the  chapter 
entitled,  The  Jirst  year  after  the  restoratioti  of  freedom)  and 
in  the  chapter  of  the  present  voKimc  On  the  PtthlUian  laws. 
The  views  there  proposed  are  the  same,  we  are  informed,  that 
Niebuhr  had  been  in  the  habit  of  unfolding  in  his  lectures : 
and  this  remark  is  interesting,  as  it  suggests  a  hope,  which 
can  scarcely  prove  altogether  fallacious,  that  even  for  those 
parts  of  his  subject  un  which  no  fragments  are  found  anion^ 
his  manuscripts,  his  history  has  not  altogether  die<l  with  him  : 
[and  that  those  treasures  of  learning  which  he  so  freely  scat- 
Itered  among  his  academical  audiences,  have  not  been  wasted 
end  will  not  long  lie  buried,  but  will  in  due  time,  though  not 
in  the  form  which  the  author  himself  would  have  given  to 
them,  he  added  to  the  public  store  of  literature.  In  the  mean 
while  the  literary  world  has  cause  to  rejoice  in  the  addition 
which  the  third  volume  has  made  to  knowledge,  the  friends  of 
the  author  in  the  new  monument  it  has  raised  to  his  fame. 


C.  T. 


ON  THE  IRONY  OF  SOPHOCLES. 


Some  readers  may  be  a  little  surprised  to  ace  irony  attributed 
to  a  trogic  poet :  and  it  may  therefore  be  proper,  before  we 
proceed  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  the  thing  an  it  appears 
in  the  works  of  Sophocles,  to  explain  and  justify  our  appli- 
cation of  the  term.  We  must  begin  with  a  remark  or  two 
on  the  more  ordinary  use  of  the  word,  ou  that  which  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  subject  of  our  pref»ent  enquiry,  we 
will  call  verbal  irrmy.  This  most  familiar  species  of  irony 
may  be  described  as  a  figure  which  enables  the  speaker  to 
convey  his  meaning  wiili  greater  force  by  means  of  a  contrast 
between  his  thought  and  his  expression,  or  to  speak  more 
accurately,  between  the  thought  which  he  evidently  designs 
to  express,  and  that  which  his  words  properly  signify.  The 
cases  in  which  this  figure  may  be  advantageously  employed 
are  so  various  as  to  include  some  directly  opposite  in  their 
nature.  For  it  will  serve  to  express  assent  aud  approbation 
as  well  as  the  contrary.  Still  as  a  friend  cannot  be  defended 
unless  against  an  enemy  who  attacks  biro,  the  use  of  verbal 
irony  must  in  all  cases  be  either  directly  or  indirectly  po- 
lemical. It  is  a  weapon  properly  belonging  to  the  armoury 
of  controversy,  and  not  fitted  to  any  entirely  peaceable  occa- 
sion. This  is  not  the  less  true  because,  as  the  enginery  of 
war  is  often  brought  out,  and  sham  fights  exhibited,  for  the 
public  amusement  in  time  of  peace,  so  there  is  a  sportive 
irony,  which  instead  of  indicating  any  contrariety  of  opinion 
or  animosity  of  feeling,  is  the  surest  sign  of  perfect  liarmony 
and  goodwill.  And  as  there  is  a  mode  of  expressing  sen- 
timents of  the  utmost  esteem  and  unanimity  by  an  ironical 
reproof  or  contradiction,  so  there  is  an  irtmical  self-commend- 
ation, by  which  a  man  may  playfully  confess  his  own  failings. 
In  the  former  case  the  speaker  feigns  the  existence  of  adver- 
saries whof«  language  he  pretends  to  adopt :  in  the  latter 
Vol.  II.  No.  6.  3Q 

/ 


On  the  Irony  of  "Sopftoeiw" 

he  supposes  himself  surrounded,  not  as  he  really  is  by  indul- 
gent friends,  but  by  severe  judges  of  his  actions,  before  whom 
it  is  necessary  for  him  to  disguise  the  imperfections  of  hU 
character.  But  where  irony  is  not  merely  jocular*  it  in  not 
simply  serious,  but  earnest.  With  resjioct  to  opinion  it  implies 
a  conviction  so  deep,  as  to  disdain  a  direct  refutation  of  the 
opposite  party :  with  respect  to  feeling,  it  implies  an  emotion 
so  strong}  as  to  be  able  to  command  itself,  and  to  suppresA 
its  natural  tone,  in  order  to  vent  itself  with  greater  force- 
Irony  is  80  inviting  an  instrument  of  literary  warfare* 
that  there  are  perhaps  few  eminent  controversial  writers  who 
have  wholly  abstained  from  the  use  of  it.  But  in  general 
even  those  who  employ  it  most  freely  reserve  it  for  particular 
occasions,  to  add  weight  and  point  to  the  grave«t  part  of 
the  argument.  There  is  however  an  irony  which  deserves  to 
be  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  species  by  a  different  name, 
and  which  may  be  properly  called  dialectic  irony.  This, 
instead  of  being  concentrated  in  insulated  passages,  and  ren- 
dered prominent  by  its  contrast  with  the  prevailing  tone  of 
the  composition,  jwrvades  every  part,  an<l  is  spread  over  the 
whole  like  a  transparent  vesture  closely  fitted  to  every  limb 
of  the  body.  The  writer  effects  his  purpose  by  placing  the 
opinion  of  his  adversary  in  the  foreground,  and  saluting  it 
with  every  demonstration  of  respect,  while  he  is  busied  in 
withdrawing  one  by  one  all  the  supports  on  which  it  rests: 
and  he  never  ctyiscs  to  approach  it  with  an  air  of  deference, 
until  he  has  completely  undermined  it,  when  he*  leaves  it 
to  sink  by  the  weight  of  its  own  absurdity.  Examples  of 
this  species  arc  as  rare  as  those  of  the  other  are  common. 
The  most  perfect  ever  produced  are  those  which  occur  in 
Plato's  dialogues.  In  modem  literature  the  finest  speci- 
mens may  lie  found  in  the  works  of  Pascal,  and  of  Plato^s 
German  translator,  who  has  imhibed  the  jtcculiur  spirit  of 
the  Platonic  irony  in  a  degree  which  has  jKrhaps  never  been 
equalled.  One  of  the  most  unfortunate  attemjtts  ever  made 
at  imitating  tiiis  character  of  the  Platonic  dialogue,  is  Bishop 
Berkeley's  Minute  Philosopher.  Examples  of  a  more  super- 
ficial kind,  where  the  ohjcct  is  rather  ridicule  than  argument, 
will  readily  present  themselves  to  the  reader's  recollection. 
The  highest  triumph  of  irony   consists  not  in  refutation  and 


On  the  Irony  of  Svphoctes. 


MB 


demolition.  It  requires  tliut»  wliile  the  fallacy  is  exposed  and 
Dvertbrawii  by  the  udmiiiusiuns  which  it  has  itself  demanded, 
the  truth  should  l)e  set  in  the  clearest  light,  and  on  the  most 
solid  ground,  by  the  attempts  made  to  suppress  and  oveiw 
whelm  it. 

Without  departing  from  the  analogy  that  pervades  the 
various  kinds  of  verbal  irony*  we  may  speak  of  a  practical 
imntf^  wliich  is  independent  of  all  forms  of  speech,  and  needs 
uot  the  aid  of  words.  Life  affords  as  many  illustrations  of 
this,  as  conversation  and  books  of  the  other.  But  here  we 
must  carefully  distinguish  between  two  totally  different  kinds, 
which,  though  they  may  often  outwardly  coincide,  spring  from 
directly  contrary  feelings.  There  is  a  malignant,  or  at  least 
a  wanton  irony,  in  the  practical  sense,  by  which  a  man 
humours  the  fully  of  another,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
it  more  extravagant  and  incorrigible,  whether  it  be  with  the, 
further  aim  of  extracting  materials  for  ridicule  from  it,  or 
of  turning  it  to  some  still  less  liberal  use.  Specimens  of  this 
kind  are  perpetually  occurring  in  society,  and  ancient  and 
modem  comedy  is  full  of  them.  But  this  same  irony  has 
a  darker  side,  which  can  excite  only  detestation  aud  horror, 
as  something  belonging  rather  to  tlie  nature  of  a  fiend  than 
of  a  man.  Such  is  the  flattery  which,  under  the  mask  of 
friendship,  deliberately  cherishes  passions,  and  panders  to 
wishes,  which  are  hurrying  their  unconscious  slave  into  ruin. 
Such  is  the  spirit  in  which  Timun  gives  his  gold  to  Alcibiades 
and  his  companions,  and  afterwards  to  the  thieves:  though 
in  the  latter  case  ho  is  near  defeating  his  own  purpose  by 
the  irony  of  his  language,  which  compels  one  of  the  thieves 
to  say :  "  He  has  almost  charmed  me  from  ray  profession  by 
persuading  me  to  it."  Such  is  the  irony  with  which  the  weird 
women  feed  the  ambitious  hopes  of  Macbeth,  and  afterward 
lull  him  into  a  false  "  security,  mortals'*  chiefest  enemy,** 
when  they  have  been  commanded  to 

'^'^  raise  such  artificial  .sprites 
As  by  the  strength  of  their  illuaioQ 
Shall  draw  Iiim  on  to  his  t-unfusion." 
Till  *'  lie  shall  spurn  fate,  scorn  death,  and  bear 
His  hopes  'hove  wisdom,  grace,  anti  fear" 


460 


MiaceNaneotm  Obgt^rvatioHs. 


and  Lutiuni  are  now  flifTerentlv  stated :  and  the  feelings  ex- 
cited at  Uomc  by  the  Latin  claims  ore  more  clearly  explained. 
Another  interesting  alteraticin  is  the  correction  of  Livy's 
erroneous  statement  (viii.  14.)  as  to  the  franchise  conferred 
on  Aricia,  Nonientum,  and  Pedum.  This,  with  the  cominuni- 
cAtion  of  a  topographical  discovery  made  by  the  author  at 
Rome,  which  deterniinea  the  position  of  tlie  Rostra  nova,  and 
leads  to  some  interesting  conclusions  with  r^ard  to  the  form 
of  the  old  Rostra,  is  the  principal  fruit  wc  reap  from  the  new 
chapter  on  this  subject.  But  the  folIoM-ing  one.  On  the 
PublUian  latca^  has  been  entirely  remodelled,  and  retains 
little  more  than  the  title  of  the  original  one.  It  appears 
from  a  note  of  the  editor  in  a  subsequent  page  to  represent 
the  author^  latest  views  of  this  obscure  and  important 
question. 

Here  then,  at  page  174,  that  portion  of  the  new  volume 
whicli  relates  to  subjects  treated  of  in  the  first  edition  ends. 
With  respect  to  the  remainder  we  cannot  perhaps  communi- 
cate the  information  whir)i  i(  is  the  object  of  thi.s  notice  to 
give,  better  ttian  by  exhibiting  at  one  view  the  titles  of  the 
chapters,  with  the  number  of  pages  occupied  by  each,  and 
then  subjoining  a  few  explanatory  remarks. 

Domestic  History  down  to  the  Caudine  peace,  p,  174. 

Alexander  of  Eplnis  181. 

Foreign  relations  down  to  the  second  Somnite  war  196. 

The  second  Samnite  war  214. 

Relations  between  Rome  and  the  nations  bordering  on 
Sainniura  after  the  peace  30<». 

The  Etruscan  wars  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  third 
Samnite  war  320. 

Domestic  history  from  the  Caudine  peace  down  to  the 
third  Samnite  war  338. 

Cn.  Flavius  367- 

The  Censorship  of  Q.  Fabius  and  P.  Decius  374. 

The  Ogulnian  law  409. 

Various  occurrences  of  the  same  period  413. 

The  third  Somnite  war,  and  the  others  of  the  same 
period  416. 

Domestic  history  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  Samnite 
war  down  to  the  Lucanian  *76. 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophociea. 


485 


demolition.  It  requires  that,  while  the  fallacy  is  exposed  and 
overthrown  by  the  adinis»ion8  which  it  has  itself  demanded, 
the  truth  should  be  set  in  the  clearest  light,  and  on  the  most 
solid  ground,  by  the  attempts  made  to  suppress  and  ovcr> 
whelm  it. 

Without  departing  from  the  analogy  that  pervades  the 
variouB  kinds  of  verbal  irony,  we  may  speak  of  a  practical 
imnt/y  which  is  independent  of  all  forms  of  speech,  and  needs 
not  the  aid  of  words.  Life  offtjrds  as  many  itlustralions  of 
this,  as  conversati(m  and  books  of  the  otlier.  But  here  we 
must  carefully  distinguish  between  two  totally  different  kinds, 
which,  though  they  may  often  outwardly  coincide,  spring  from 
directly  contrary  feelings.  There  is  a  malignant,  or  at  least 
a  wanton  irony,  in  the  practical  sense,  by  which  a  man 
humours  the  folly  of  anotlier,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
it  more  extravagant  and  incorrigible,  whether  it  be  with  tlie 
furtlier  aim  of  extracting  materials  fur  ridicule  from  it,  or 
of  turning  it  to  some  still  less  liberal  use.  Specimens  of  this 
kind  are  ixTijetually  occurring  in  8(x.-iety,  and  ancient  and 
modern  comedy  i»  full  of  them.  But  this  same  irony  has 
a  darker  ftide,  which  can  excite  only  detestation  and  horror, 
as  something  belonging  rather  to  the  nature  of  a  tiend  than 
of  a  man.  Such  is  the  flattery  which,  under  the  mask  of 
friendship,  deliberately  cherishes  passions,  and  [mnders  to 
wishes,  which  are  hurrying  their  unconscious  slave  into  ruin. 
Such  is  the  spirit  in  which  Timon  gives  hia  gold  to  Alcibiades 
and  his  companions,  and  afterwards  to  the  thieves :  though 
in  the  latter  case  he  is  near  defeating  his  own  purpose  by 
the  irony  of  his  language,  whicli  compels  one  of  the  thieves 
to  Bay :  "  He  has  almost  charmed  me  from  my  profession  by 
persuading  me  to  it."  Such  is  the  irony  with  which  the  weird 
women  feed  the  ambitious  hopes  of  Macbeth,  and  afterward 
lull  him  into  a  false  "security,  mortaU"  chiefest  enemy," 
when  they  have  been  commanded  to 

"raise  such  artificial  sprites 
As  by  the  strength  of  their  illusion 
.;.  Shall  draw  him  on  to  his  confusion.** 
Tin  **  kle  shall  spurn  fate,  scorn  death,  and  bear 
His  hopes  "bovc  wisdom,  grace,  and  feor." 


481 


On  the  Irornj  of  Sfphoeies. 


he  supposes  himself  surrounded,  not  as  he  really  is  by  indul- 
gent friends,  but  by  severe  judges  of  his  actions,  before  whom 
it  is  neeessary  for  him  to  disguise  the  imperfections  of  his 
character.  But  where  irony  is  not  merely  jocular,  it  is  not 
simply  serious,  but  earnest.  With  respect  to  opinion  it  implies 
a  conviction  so  deep,  as  to  disdain  a  direct  refutation  of  the 
opposite  party :  with  respect  to  feeling,  it  implies  an  emotion 
so  strong,  as  to  be  able  to  command  itself,  and  to  suppress 
Ua  natural  tone,  in  order  to  vent  itself  with  greater  force. 

Irony  is  so  inviting  an  instrument  of  literary  warfare, 
that  there  arc  perliaps  few  eminent  controversial  writers  who 
have  wholly  abstained  from  the  use  of  it.  But  in  general 
even  thnw  who  employ  it  most  freely  reserve  it  for  particular 
occasions,  to  add  weight  and  point  to  the  gravest  part  of 
the  argument.  There  is  however  an  irony  which  deserves  to 
be  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  species  by  a  different  name, 
and  which  may  be  properly  called  dialectic  irony.  This, 
instead  of  being  concentrated  in  insulated  passages,  and  ren- 
dered prominent  by  its  contrast  with  the  prevailing  tone  of 
the  composition,  per^'ades  every  part,  and  is  spread  over  the 
whole  like  a  transparent  vesture  closely  fitted  to  every  limb 
of  the  bmly.  The  writer  effects  his  purjwse  by  placing  the 
opinion  of  his  adversary  in  the  foreground,  and  saluting  it 
with  every  demonstration  of  respect,  while  he  is  busied  in 
withdrawing  one  by  one  all  the  supports  on  which  it  rests: 
and  he  never  ceases  to  approach  it  with  an  air  of  deference, 
until  he  has  completely  undermined  it,  when  he  leaves  it 
to  sink  by  the  weight  of  its  own  absurdity.  Examples  of 
this  species  are  as  rare  as  those  of  the  other  are  common. 
The  most  perfect  ever  produced  are  those  which  occur  in 
Plato*'s  dialogues.  In  modern  literature  the  finest  speci- 
mens muy  be  found  in  the  works  of  Pascal,  and  of  Plato's 
German  translator,  who  has  imbibed  the  peculiar  spirit  of 
the  Platonic  irony  in  a  degree  which  has  |»erhaps  never  been 
i.'qualled.  One  of  the  most  unfortunate  attempts  ever  made 
at  imitating  this  character  of  the  Platonic  dialogue,  is  Bishop 
Berkeley's  Minute  Philosopher.  Examples  of  a  more  sujwr- 
ficia'  kind,  where  the  object  is  rather  ridicule  than  argument, 
will  readily  present  themselves  to  the  reader^s  reeolleclioo. 
The  h'ghe^t  triumph  of  irony   consists  not  in  refutation  and 


Oh  the  Irony  of  Sophoeiea. 


4ȣ 


I 


demolition.  It  requires  that,  while  the  fallacy  is  ex|xiiM-d  and 
overthrown  by  the  admissions  wEiiclt  it  lias  itself  demanded, 
the  truth  should  be  set  in  the  clearest  light,  and  on  the  mo»t 
solid  ground,  by  the  attempts  made  to  suppress  and  over- 
whelm it. 

Without  departing  from  the  analogy  that  pervades  the 
various  kinds  of  verbal  irony,  we  may  speak  of  a  practical 
irontf,  which  is  independent  of  all  forms  of  speech,  and  needs 
not  the  aid  of  words.  Life  affords  oa  many  illustrations  of 
this,  as  conversation  and  books  of  the  other.  Hut  here  we 
must  carefully  distinguish  between  two  totally  difierent  kinds, 
which,  though  they  may  often  outwardly  coincide,  spring  from 
directly  contrary  feelings.  There  is  a  malignant,  or  at  least 
a  wantim  irony,  in  the  practical  sense,  by  which  a  man 
humours  the  folly  of  another,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
it  more  extravagant  and  incorrigible,  whether  it  be  with  the 
further  aim  of  extracting  materials  for  ridicule  from  it,  or 
of  turning  it  to  sonic  still  less  liberal  use.  Specimens  of  this 
kind  are  perpetually  occurring  in  society,  and  ancient  and 
modem  comedy  is  full  of  them.  But  this  same  irony  has 
a  darker  side,  which  can  excite  only  detestation  and  horror, 
as  something  belonging  rather  to  the  nature  of  a  iicnd  than 
of  a  man.  Such  is  the  flattery  which,  under  the  mask  of 
friendship,  deliberately  cherishes  passions,  and  panders  to 
wishes,  which  are  hurrying  their  unconscious  slave  into  ruin. 
Such  is  the  spirit  in  which  Tinion  gives  his  gold  to  Alcihiades 
and  his  companions,  and  afterwards  to  the  thieves:  though 
in  the  latter  case  he  is  near  defeating  his  own  purpose  by 
the  irony  of  his  language,  which  compels  one  of  the  thieves 
to  say  :  **  He  bus  almost  charmed  me  from  my  profession  by 
persuading  me  to  it.'^  Sucli  is  the  irony  with  which  the  weird 
women  feed  the  ambitious  hopes  of  Macbetl),  and  afterward 
lull  him  into  a  false  *'- security,  mortals'*  chiefest  eneuiy,^* 
when  they  have  been  commanded  to 

'*  raise  such  artificial  sprites 
As  by  the  strength  of  their  illusion 
Shall  draw  him  on  ti>  liis  confusion.'* 
Till  **  lie  fihall  spurn  fate,  scorn  death,  and  liear 
I  lis  hopes  'bovc  wisdom,  grmc,  am\  fear.'"" 


4B4 


On  the  Irtmy  of  Sophocles. 


he  supposes  himself  surrounded,  not  as  he  really  is  by  indul- 
gent friends,  but  by  severe  judges  of  his  actions,  before  whom 
it  is  necessary  for  him  to  disguise  the  imperfections  of  his 
character.  But  where  irony  is  not  merely  jocular,  it  is  not 
simply  serious,  but  earnest.  With  respect  to  opinion  it  implies 
a  conviction  so  deep,  as  to  disdain  a  direct  refutation  of  the 
opposite  party :  with  respect  to  feelint^,  it  implies  an  emotion 
so  strong,  as  to  be  able  to  command  itself,  and  to  suppress 
its  natural  tone,  in  order  to  vent  itself  with  greats  force. 

Irony  is  so  inviting  an  instrument  nf  literary  warfare, 
that  there  arc  perhaps  few  eminent  controversial  writers  who 
have  wholly  abstained  from  the  use  of  it.  But  in  general 
even  those  who  employ  it  most  freely  reserve  it  for  jiarticular 
occasions,  to  add  weight  and  point  to  the  gravest  part  of 
the  argument.  There  is  however  an  irony  which  deserves  to 
be  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  species  by  a  different  name, 
and  which  may  be  properly  called  dialectic  irony.  This, 
instead  of  being  concentrated  in  insulated  passages,  and  ren- 
dered prominent  by  its  contrast  with  the  prevailing  tone  of 
the  composition,  pervades  every  part,  and  is  spread  over  the 
whole  like  a  transparent  vesture  closely  fitted  to  every  limb 
of  the  body-  The  writer  effects  his  purpose  by  placing  the 
opinion  of  his  adversary  in  the  foreground,  and  saluting  it 
with  every  demonstration  of  respect,  while  he  is  busied  in 
withdrawing  one  by  one  all  the  supports  on  which  it  rests: 
and  he  never  ceases  to  approach  it  with  an  air  of  deference, 
until  he  has  completely  undermined  it,  when  he  leaves  it 
to  sink  by  the  weight  of  its  own  absurdity.  Examples  of 
this  species  are  as  rare  as  those  of  the  other  are  common. 
The  most  perfect  ever  produced  are  those  which  occur  in 
Plato's  dialogues.  In  modern  literature  the  finest  speci- 
mens may  be  found  in  the  works  of  Pascal,  and  of  Plato's 
German  translator,  who  has  imbibed  the  peculiar  spirit  of 
the  Platonic  irony  in  a  degree  which  has  jwrhaps  never  lieen 
wqualled.  One  of  the  most  unfortunate  attempts  ever  made 
ai  imitating  this  character  of  the  Platonic  dialogue,  is  Bishop 
Berkeley's  Minute  Philosopher.  Examples  of  a  more  supcr- 
ficia?  kind,  where  the  object  is  rather  ridicule  than  argument, 
will  i-eadily  present  themselves  to  the  reader's  recollection. 
The  h'ghest  triumph  of  irony  consists  not  in  refutation  and 


On  the  irony  of  Sojthvd^s. 


486 


demolition.  It  requires  that,  wliile  the  fallacy  is  exposed  and 
overthrown  by  the  admis§Jon8  which  it  has  itself  demanded, 
the  truth  should  be  set  in  the  clearest  light,  and  on  tlie  most 
solid  ground,  by  the  attempts  made  to  suppress  and  over- 
whelm it. 

Witliout  departing  from  the  analogy  that  pervades  the 
various  kinds  of  verbal  irony,  we  may  speak  of  a  practical 
ironi/y  which  is  independent  of  all  forms  of  speech,  and  needs 
out  tlie  aid  of  wortL^.  Life  aflbnls  as  many  illustrations  of 
this,  as  conversation  and  books  of  the  otiier.  13ut  here  we 
must  carefully  distinguish  between  two  totally  different  kinds, 
which,  tliough  thev  may  often  outwardly  coiucidt^,  spring  from 
directly  contrary  feelings.  There  is  a  malignant,  or  at  least 
a  wanton  irony,  in  the  practical  sense,  by  which  a  man 
humours  the  folly  of  another,  fur  the  purpose  of  rendering 
it  more  extravagant  and  incorrigible,  whether  it  be  with  the. 
further  aim  of  extracting  materials  for  ridicule  from  it,  or 
of  turning  it  to  some  still  les.s  liberal  use-  Specimens  of  this 
kind  are  perpetually  occurring  in  society,  and  ancient  and 
modem  comedy  is  full  of  them.  But  this  same  irony  has 
a  darker  side,  which  can  excite  only  detestation  and  horror, 
as  something  belonging  rather  to  the  nature  of  a  iiend  than 
of  a  man.  Such  is  the  flattery  which,  under  the  mask  of 
friendship,  deliberately  cherishes  passions,  and  panders  to 
wishes,  which  are  hurrying  their  unconscious  slave  into  ruin. 
Such  is  the  spirit  in  which  Timon  gives  his  gold  to  Alcibia<les 
and  his  companions,  and  afterwards  to  the  thieves :  though 
in  the  latter  case  he  is  near  defeating  his  own  purpose  by 
the  irony  of  his  language,  which  compels  one  of  the  thieves 
to  say  :  **  He  has  almost  charmed  me  from  mv  profession  by 
persuading  me  to  it."  Such  is  the  irony  with  which  the  weird 
women  feed  the  ambitious  hopes  of  Macbeth,  and  afterward 
lull  him  into  a  false  **  security,  mortals'  chiefest  enemy,** 
when  they  have  been  commanded  to 

*'  raise  such  artificial  sprites 
As  by  the  strength  of  their  illusion 
Shall  draw  him  on  tu  his  confusion.^ 
Till  "  fcic  shall  spurn  fate,  scorn  death,  and  bear 
His  hopes  'bovc  wisdom,  grace,  and  fear" 


486 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


Such,  but  more  truly  diabolical,  is  the  irony  with  which  in 
Faust  the  Spirit  of  Evil  accompanies  his  victim  on  his  fatal 
career,  and  with  which,  by  way  of  interlude,  he  receives  the 
visit  of  the  young  scholar. 

But  there  is  al»o  a  practical  irony  which  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  highest  degree  of  wisdom  and  benevolence. 
A  man  of  superior  understanding  may  often  find  himself  com- 
pelled to  assent  to  propositions  which  he  knows,  though  true 
in  themselves,  will  lead  to  very  erroneous  inferences  in  the 
mind  of  the  speaker,  because  either  circumstances  prevent 
him  from  subjoining  the  proper  limitations,  or  the  person  be 
is  addressing  is  incapable  of  comprehending  them.  So  again 
a  friend  may  comply  with  the  wishes  of  one  who  is  dear  to 
liim,  though  he  foresees  that  they  will  probably  end  in  dis- 
appointment and  vexation,  either  because  he  conceives  that 
he  has  no  right  to  decide  for  another,  or  because  he  thinks 
it  prolmble  that  the  disappointment  itself  will  prove  more 
salutary  tlmn  the  privation.  Such  is  the  conduct  of  the  «f- 
fectiunutc  falher  in  the  jinrnblo,  which  is  a  type  of  univi'rsal 
application :  for  in  every  transgression  tliere  is  a  concurrence 
of  a  depraved  will,  which  is  the  vice  of  the  agent,  with 
certain  outward  (-onditinns,  which  mnv  be  considered  as  a 
boon  graciously  bestowed,  but  capable  of  licing  perverted 
into  an  instrument  of  evil,  and  a  cause  of  misery.  It  must 
have  occurred  to  most  men,  more  especially  to  those  of  san- 
guine temperament,  and  whose  lives  have  been  chequered 
with  many  vicissitudes,  now  and  then  to  reflect  how  little 
the  good  and  ill  of  tlieir  lot  has  corresponded  with  their 
hopes  and  fears.  All  who  liave  lived  long  enough  in  the 
world  must  be  able  to  remember  objects  coveted  with  im- 
patient eagerness,  and  pursued  with  long  and  unremitting 
toil,  wluch  in  possession  have  proved  tasteless  aud  worthless: 
hours  embittered  with  anxiety  aud  dread  by  the  prospect  of 
changes  which  brought  with  them  the  fulfilment  of  the  most 
ardent  wishes:  events  anticipated  with  trembling  expectation 
which  arrived,  past,  and  left  no  sensible  trace  beiiind  them: 
while  tilings  >f  which  thev  scarcely  heeded  the  existence, 
persons  whom  they  met  with  indifi'erence,  exerted  the  most 
imjiortant  influence  on  their  character  and  fortunes.     When, 


On  the  Irony  of  Sopkoclea. 


487 


at  a  sufficient  intenal  and  with  altered  mood,  He  review 
such  instances  of  the  mockery  of  fate,  we  can  scarcely  refrain 
from  a  melancholy  sniile.  And  such,  we  conceive,  though 
without  any  of  the  feelings  that  sumetinies  sadden  our  re- 
trospect, must  have  l>ecn  tlie  look  which  a  su|)erior  intelligence, 
exempt  from  our  passions,  and  capable  of  surveying  all  our 
relations,  and  foreseeing  the  consequences  of  all  our  actionsi 
would  ut  the  time  have  cast  \x\to\\  the  tumultuous  workings 
of  our  blind  ambition  and  our  groundless  apprehensions,  u|xin 
the  phantoms  we  raised  to  chase  U8,  or  to  be  chased,  while 
the  substance  of  good  and  evil  presented  itself  to  our  view, 
and  was  utterly  disregarded. 

But  it  is  not  only  in  the  lives  of  individuals  that  man''^ 
shortsighted  impatience  and  temerity  are  thus  tacitly  rebuked 
by  the  course  uf  events:  examples  still  mure  striking  are 
furnished  by  the  history  of  states  and  institutions.  The  mo- 
ment of  the  highest  prosperity  is  often  that  which  immedi- 
ately precedes  the  most  ruinous  disaster,  and  (as  in  the  case 
nut  only  of  a  Xerxes,  a  Cliarles  the  Bold,  a  Philip  the  Hfx:ond, 
and  a  Napoleon,  but  of  Athens,  and  Sparta,  and  Clarthage,  and 
Venice,)  it  is  tlie  sense  uf  security  that  constitutes  the  danger,  it 
is  the  consciousness  of  power  and  the  desire  of  exerting  it  that 
causes  the  downfall.  It  is  not  however  these  sudden  and 
signal  reverses,  the  fruit  of  overweening  arrogance  and  in- 
satiable ambition,  that  we  have  here  principally  to  ohsen*e : 
but  rather  an  universal  law,  which  manifests  itself,  no  less 
in  the  mural  world  than  in  the  physical,  according  to  which 
the  period  of  inward  languor,  corruption,  and  decay,  which 
follows  that  of  maturity,  presents  an  asptct  more  dazzling 
and  commanding,  and  to  those  who  look  only  at  the  surface 
inspires  greater  confidence  and  respect,  than,  the  season  of 
youthful  health,  of  growing  but  unripened  strength.  The 
power  of  the  Persians  was  most  truly  formidable  when  they 
first  issued  from  their  comparatively  narrow  territory  to  over- 
spread .Asia  with  their  arms.  But  at  what  epoch  in  their 
history  does  the  Great  King  appear  invested  with  t^uch  ma- 
jesty, as  when  he  dictated  the  peace  of  Antaleidas  to  the 
Greeks !  And  yet  at  this  very  time  the  throne  on  which  he 
sate  with  so  lofty  a  jxirt,  was  so  insecurely  based,  that  a  slight 


•WB 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


shock  would  hnvc  been  sutReient,  as  was  soon  proved,  to  lei 
it  with  the  dust. 

It  was  nearly  at  the  same  juncture  that  Sparta  seemed 
to  have  attained  the  summit  oi  her  power :  her  old  enemy 
had  been  reduced  to  insignificance  :  her  two  most  formidable 
rivals  converted  into  useful  dependants:  her  refractory  allies 
chastised  and  cowed  :  in  no  quarter  of  the  political  horizon, 
neither  in  nor  out  of  Greece,  did  it  seem  possible  for  the 
kcfsicst  eye  to  discover  any  prognostics  of  danger :  her  em- 
j>ire,  says  the  contcnuwrary  histuriun,  appeared  in  every 
respect  to  have  been  now  established  on  a  glorious  and  solid 
base.  Yet  in  a  few  years  the  Spartan  women  saw  for  the 
first  time  the  smoke  of  the  Haines  with  which  a  hostile  army 
ravaged  their  country  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the 
capital:  and  a  Spartan  embassy  implored  the  pity  of  the 
Athenians,  and  ]>lcuded  the  magnanimity  with  which  Sparta 
in  her  day  of  victory  had  preserved  Athens  from  aiuiihilution, 
as  a  motive  for  the  exercise  of  similar  generosity  toward  a 
fallen  enemy.  The  historian  sees  in  this  reverse  the  judge- 
ment of  the  gods  against  treachery  and  impiety.  But  when 
we  inquire  about  the  steps  by  which  the  change  was  effected, 
we  find  that  the  mistress  of  Greece  had  lost— nearly  a  thousand 
of  her  subjects,  and  about  four  hundred  of  her  citizens,  at  the 
battle  of  Leuctra. 

It  would  be  impertinent  to  accumulate  illustrations  wliich 
will  present  themselves  uncalled  to  every  reader's  mind :  we 
might  otherwise  find  some  amusement  m  comparing  the  his- 
tory of  great  cities  with  that  of  their  respective  states,  and 
in  observing  how  often  the  splendour  of  the  one  has  increased 
in  proportion  to  the  weakness  and  rottenness  of  the  other. 
The  ages  of  conquest  and  of  glory  had  past,  before  Rome 
began  to  exhibit  a  marble  front ;  and  the  old  consuls  who 
in  the  wars  of  a  century  scarcely  quelled  the  Samnitc  hydra, 
and  who  brought  army  after  army  into  the  field  to  be  de- 
stroyed by  I^iannibal,  would  have  gazed  with  wonder  on  the 
magnificence  in  the  midst  of  which  the  master  of  the  empire, 
in  anguish  and  dismay,  called  upon  Varus  to  restore  his  three 
legions.  Yet  Rome  under  Augustus  was  probably  less  gor- 
geous  than   Ryzantiuni   under   Conbtantine,    whose   city   was 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophociev. 


M» 


no  unapt  image  of  the  ill  wltich  Dante  tleplored,  as  the  con* 
sequence,  though  nut  the  effect,  of  his  conversion^  But  instead 
of  dwelling  on  tlie  numerous  contrasts  of  this  kind  which 
history  suggests  in  illustrating  the  fragile  and  transitory  na- 
ture of  all  mortal  greatness,  we  shall  draw  nearer  to  our  main 
point,  and  shall  at  the  same  time  1>e  taking  a  more  clieering 
view  of  our  subject,  if  we  observe,  that,  as  all  things  human 
are  subject  to  dissolutiun,  so  and  for  the  same  reason  it  is 
the  moment  of  their  destruction  that  to  the  best  and  noblest 
of  tliem  is  the  beginning  of  a  higher  being,  the  dawn  of 
a  brighter  })eriod  of  action.  When  we  reflect  on  the  colossal 
inonarchies  tliat  have  succeeded  one  anotlier  on  tlie  face  of 
the  earth,  we  readily  acknowledge  that  tliey  fulfilled  the  best 
purpose  of  their  proud  existence,  when  they  were  broken 
up  in  order  that  their  fragments  might  serve  us  materials 
for  new  structures.  We  confess  with  a  sigh  that  the  wonders 
of  Eg)*pt  were  not  a  mere  waste  of  human  labour,  if  the 
sight  of  them  inspired  the  genius  of  the  Greeks.  But  we 
should  have  been  mure  reluctant  to  admit  that  this  nation 
it&elf,  which  stands  so  solitary'  and  unapproachable  in  its 
peculiar  excellence,  attained  its  highest  glory,  when,  by  the 
loss  of  its  freedom  and  its  power,  it  was  enabled  to  dilFuse 
a  small  portion  of  its  spirit  through  the  Roman  world :  had 
it  not  been  that  it  was  the  destiny  of  this  Roman  world  to 
crumble  into  dust,  and  to  be  trampled  by  hordes  of  barbarians, 
strangers  to  arts  and  letters.  Yet  we  can  believe  this,  and 
things  much  more  wonderful,  when  we  contemplate  that  new 
order  of  things,  which  followed  what  seemed  so  frightful  a 
darkness,  and  such  irretrievable  ruin. 

We  must  add  one  ot}ier  general  remark  before  we  proceed 
to  apply  the  preceding.  There  is  always  a  slight  cast  of  irony 
in  the  grave,  calm,  respectful  attention  impartially  bestowed  by 
an  intelligent  judge  on  two  contending  parties,  who  are  plead- 
ing their  causes  before  him  with  all  the  earnestness  of  deep 
conviction,  and  of  excited  feeling.  AVhat  makes  the  contrast 
interesting  is,  that  the  right  and  the  truth  lie  on  neither  side 
exclusively:  that  there  is  no  fraudulent  pui'pose,  no  gross 
imbecility   of   intellect,  on   either:    but    both  have   plausible 

■  Inf.  xiz.    Ahi,  Co«Uuitin,   di  quinto  nud  fu    tiutre,    Non   la  tua  conrenion, 
ma  quelU  dole  Che  <la  tc  pmc  il  jnHmn  ricco  patrc. 


4^ 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles- 


claimi!  and  specious  reasons  to  alledge,  tliough  each  is  too 
much  blinded  by  prejudice  or  passion  to  do  justice  to  llje 
views  of  his  adversary.  For  here  the  irony  lies  not  in  the 
demeanor  of  the  jud^e,  but  is  deeply  seated  in  the  case  itself, 
which  seems  to  favour  each  of  the  litigants,  but  really  eludes 
them  both.  And  this  too  it  is  that  lends  the  higliewt  degree 
of  interest  to  the  conflicts  nf  religious  and  political  parties. 
For  when  we  believe  that  no  principle,  no  sentiment^  is  in- 
volved in  the  contest,  but  that  each  of  the  rival  factions  is 
equally  selfish,  and  equally  insincere,  we  must  look  on  with 
indifference  or  disgust,  unles.s  some  other  interests  are  likely 
to  be  affected  by  the  issue.  Our  attention  is  indeed  more 
anxiously  fixed  on  a  struggle  in  wliich  right  and  wrong, 
truth  and  falsehood,  virtue  and  vice,  are  manifestly  arrayed 
in  deliberate  opposition  against  each  other.  But  still  this 
case,  if  it  ever  occurs,  is  not  that  on  which  the  mind  dwells 
with  the  most  intense  anxiety.  For  it  seems  to  carry  its 
own  final  decision  in  itself.  But  the  liveliest  interest  arises 
when  by  inevitable  circumstances,  characters,  motives,  and 
principles  arc  brought  into  hostile  collision,  in  which  good 
and  evil  are  so  inextricably  blended  on  each  side,  that  we 
are  compelled  to  give  an  equal  share  of  our  sympathy  to 
each,  while  we  perceive  that  no  earthly  power  can  rccuncUe 
them ;  that  the  strife  must  last  until  it  is  extinguislied  with 
at  least  one  of  the  parties,  and  yet  that  this  cannot  happen 
without  the  sacrifice  of  something  which  we  should  wi»h  to 
preserve.  Such  spectacles  often  occur  in  human  affairs,  and 
agitate  the  bystanders  with  painful  perplexity.  But  a  review 
of  history  tends  to  allay  this  uneasiness,  by  affording  us  on 
many  such  occasions,  a  glimpse  of  the  balance  held  by  an 
invisible  hand,  which  so  nicely  adjust;*  the  claims  of  the  an- 
tagonists, that  neither  is  whully  triumphant,  nor  absolutely 
defeated ;  each  perliaps  loses  the  object  he  aimed  at,  but  in 
exchange  gains  sometliing  far  beyond  his  hopes. 

Tlie  dramatic  poet  h  the  creator  of  a  little  world,  in 
which  he  rules  with  absolute  sway,  and  may  slutpe  the  des- 
tinies of  the  imaginary  beings  to  whom  he  gives  life  and 
breath  according  to  any  plan  that  he  may  choose.  Since 
however  they  are  men  whose  actions  he  represents,  and  since 
it  is  human  sympathy  that  he  claims,  he  will,  if  he  understands 


On  the  Trariy  of  Sopkorieg. 


«91 


liis  art,  make  his  ndiiiiniKtratioii  conform  to  the  laws  by  which 
he  conceives  the  coui*se  of  mortnl  life  to  I)e  really  j^verned. 
Nothing  that  rouses  the  feelings  in  the  history  of  mankind 
is  foreign  to  his  scene,  but  as  he  is  confined  by  artificial 
limit.s»  he  must  hasten  the  march  of  events,  and  compress 
within  a  narrow  compass  what  is  commonly  found  diffused 
over  a  large  space,  so  that  a  faithful  image  of  human  exist- 
ence may  be  concentrated  in  his  mimic  sphere.  From  this 
sphere  however  he  himself  stands  aloof.  The  eye  with  which 
he  views  his  microcosm,  and  the  creatures  who  move  in  it,  vill 
not  be  one  of  human  friendship,  nor  of  brotherly  kindness, 
nor  of  parental  love;  it  will  lie  that  with  which  he  imagines 
that  the  invisible  power  who  orders  the  destiny  of  man 
might  regard  the  world  and  its  doings.  The  essential  cha- 
racter therefore  of  all  dramatic  poetry  must  depend  on  the 
poet^s  rdigious  or  philosophical  sentiments  on  the  light  in 
which  he  contemplates  history  and  life,  on  the  belief  lie  en- 
tertains as  to  the   unseen  hand    ttiat  regulates  their  events. 

If  any  of  these  remarks  should  appear  <|uestionable  as 
a  general  proposition,  we  may  at  least  safely  assume  their 
truth,  as  beyond  doubt,  when  they  arc  applied  to  Sophocles. 
Not  even  the  most  superHcial  reader  of  his  works  can  fail 
to  observe,  that  they  are  all  imprest  with  a  deep  religious 
character,  that  he  takes  every  opportunity  of  directing  the 
attention  of  his  audience  to  an  overruling  Power,  and  appears 
to  consider  his  own  most  important  function  to  l>e  that  of 
interpreting  its  decrees.  Wliat  then  was  the  religion  of  So- 
phocles ?  what  was  his  conception  of  this  Power  whom  he 
himself  represents  in  conducting  the  affairs  of  his  ideal  world  .' 
On  the  answer  we  give  to  this  question  must  evidently  depend 
our  apprehension  of  the  poet's  main  design,  and  our  enjoy- 
ment of  the  art  he  has  exerted  in  its  execution.  Unquestion- 
ably the  religion  of  Sophocles  was  not  the  religion  of  Homer, 
and  the  light  in  which  he  viewed  destiny  and  providence 
was  not  that  in  which  they  are  exhibited  by  the  Homeric 
poems.  In  the  interval  wliich  separated  the  maturity  of  epic 
and  dramatic  poetry,  the  human  mind  had  taken  some  great 
strides:  and  men  of  a  vigorous  and  cultivated  intellect  could 
no  longer  acquiesce  in  the  simple  theology  of  the  Homeric 
age.  The  dogma  which  to  the  hearers  of  the  old  bard  seemed 
Vol.  II,  No.  (>.  :Ul 


492 


On  the  fnmy  of  Sopkoclen- 


pcrltflps  the  best  solution  tlmt  could  be  found  for  their  moral 
difHcuUicfi,  that  the  father  of  gods  and  men  was,  like  the 
humblest  of  his  children,  subject  to  the  sway  of  an  irresistible 
fate,  against  which  he  often  might  nuimmr  in  vain :  this 
dogma  waA  supprcst  or  kept  in  the  hack  ground,  and  od 
the  other  hand  the  paramount  supremacy  of  Jupiter  was 
brought  prominently  forward^.  The  popular  mythology  in- 
deed still  cloinietl  unabated  reverence,  even  from  the  most 
enliglitened  Greeks.  But  the  quarrels  of  the  god»,  which 
had  adorded  »u  much  entertainment  to  tlieir  Bintplehearied 
furefaiherR,  were  hushed  ou  the  tragic  scene:  and  a  unity 
of  will  was  tacitly  supposed  to  exist  among  the  meinbera 
of  the  Olympian  family,  which  would  have  deprived  Homor 
of  his  best  machinery.  The  tendency  of  these  changes  was 
to  transfer  the  functions  of  Destiny  to  Jupiter,  and  to  re- 
present all  event!*  as  issuing  from  his  will,  anri  the  good  am) 
evil  that  falls  to  the  lot  of  mortals  as  dispensed  by  his  hand. 
It  is  evident  that,  so  far  as  this  notion  prevailed,  the  character 
of  destiny  was  materially  altered.  It  could  no  longer  be 
considered  as  a  mere  brute  force,  a  blind  necessity  working 
without  consciousness  of  its  means  or  its  ends.  The  power 
in(lee<l  still  remained,  and  was  still  mvsterious  in  its  nature, 
inevitable  and  irresistible  in  its  operation ;  but  it  was  now 
coDceived  to  be  under  the  direction  of  a  sovereign  mind, 
acting  according  to  the  rules  of  unerring  justice.  This  beiiig 
the  case,  llwugh  its  proceedings  niiglil  often  be  iuscrutable 
to  man,  they  would  never  be  accidental  or  capricious. 

How  far  these  ideas  had  acquired  clearness  and  consistency 
in  the  mind  of  Sophocles,  it  is  impossible  precisely  and  cer- 
tainly to  determine.  But  it  seems  indisputable  that  indications 
of  them  appear  in  his  works,  and  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
the  traces  of  their  inHuenee  on  his  poetry.  It  has  indeed 
been  often  supposed  that  some  of  his  greatest  masterpieces 
were  founded  on  a  totally  different  view  of  the  subject  from 
that  Just  described :    on    tiie   supposition   that    mankind   were 

*  Sm  Aniijfon.  (KM.  itdv,   Zti,   oivaow  ti't  difip*uv   iirtpfiaata   KitTdrxot<   tsV 

oW    ihnmr   ol^rl  irod*   6    irat>^oyilfn»9   k.  t.  X.      CEd.    C.    lOSft.    W    Tairrdpx*    ^•""t 

*    wairr&WTm   Zr&.     EL  17^-     fiiyat   u  obpaiHf   Zn>v,   Ht   itfn>t/n   xavm   Kal  x^irrvnt. 

CEd.    T.   tK)7.    dKX'   lit   •ifnrru¥iiiii,    cl-rfj,   ip6'   aKovtii,    7,*i  Wit'   aiw«i«wtf.      The 

thouglH  U  MilJ  more  fowiUy  exprasMd  in  Pliilocu  tl7«-  X^w  *'»**,  X»'  •Ujv.  iC*i« 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophrtttea. 


493 


either  subject  to  an  iron  destiny,  which  witlioul  design  or 
forethought  nteadily  pursued  its  immutable  track,  insensible 
of  the  victims  which  in  it^  progress  it  crushed  beneath  its 
car:  or  else  that  they  were  at  the  mercy  of  reckless  and 
wayward  deities,  who  ftportcd  witli  tlicir  hoppinuss^  und  some* 
times  dcstroywi  it  merely  to  display  their  power.  We  do  not 
deny  that  the  former  at  least  of  these  so pposi lions  may  he 
adaptml  to  tin-  piiquiscs  of  dramatic  poetry,  and  that  tlie 
contrast  between  man  with  hi;*  hupes^  fears,  wishes,  and  un- 
dertakings, and  a  dark,  inflexible  fate,  affords  abundant  room 
for  the  exhibition  of  tragic  irony :  but  we  conceive  that 
this  is  not  the  loftiest  kind,  and  that  Sophocleti  really  aimed 
at  something  higher.  To  investigate  this  subject  thorouglily, 
so  as  to  )>oint  out  the  various  shades  and  gradations  of  irony 
in  his  tragedies,  would  require  much  more  than  the  space 
which  can  here  be  devoted  to  it.  We  shall  content  ourselves 
with  selecting  some  features  in  his  compositions  which  appear 
most  strikingly  to  illustrate  the  foregoing  remarks.  One  ob- 
servation however  must  he  premised,  without  which  the  works 
of  Sophocles  can  scarcely  be  iHewed  in  a  proper  light.  That 
absolute  power  which  we  have  attributed  to  the  dramatic  poet 
orer  his  creatures,  may  be  limited  by  circumstances :  and  in 
the  Greek  theatre  it  was  in  fact  rcstrieled  !)y  peculiar  causes. 
None  but  gods  or  heroes  could  act  any  promitient  part  in 
the  Attic  tragedy;  and  as  the  principal  persons  were  all 
celebrated  in  the  national  poetry,  their  deeds  and  sufTenngs 
were  in  general  familiar  to  the  audience.  The  j>oet  indeed 
enjoyed  full  liberty  of  choice  among  the  tnaiufold  forms  which 
almo<it  every  tradition  a^^sunutl :  and  he  wa-s  allowed  to  intro- 
duce considerable  variations  in  subordinate  points.  Hut  still 
he  was  confined  within  a  definite  range  of  subjects,  and  even 
in  that  he  coidd  not  expatiate  with  uncontrolled  freedom. 
Now  the  legends  from  which  his  scenes  were  to  be  drawn, 
were  the  fictions,  at  least  the  tales,  of  a  simple  but  rude  age; 
the  characters  of  his  principal  perwms  were  such  as  had  struck 
the  vigorous  but  unrefined  imagination  uf  a  rate  who  were 
still  children  of  nature:  their  actions  were  such  as  exhibited 
the  qualities  most  esteemed  in  the  infancy  of  »K'iety ;  and 
their  fate  corresponded  to  the  view  then  entertained  of  the 
manner   in  which    the   affairs  of  the  world   are   diriMited    by 


494 


Ofi  ike  Irony  of  Sophoclea. 


I  mitural  or  supernatural  a^ncy-  While  the  poet''8  materials 
were  thus  prescrihed  for  him,  it  was  scarcely  jwssible  that 
he  should  infuse  his  spirit  equally  into  all,  and  so  mould 
and  organize  them,  as  never  to  betray  the  coarseness  of  their 
original  texture.  Duly  to  estimate  the  art  of  Sophocles,  and 
rightly  to  understand  his  designs,  we  must  take  into  account 
the  resistance  of  the  elements  which  he  hud  to  transform  and 
fashion  to  his  purposes.  Wlieii  we  coiisider  their  nature  we 
shall  not  perhaps  he  surpri^ted  to  find  that  he  sometimes  con- 
tents himself  with  slight  indications  of  liis  meaning,  and  that 
everything  does  not  appear  exactly  to  harmonize  with  it. 
We  sliall  rather  admire  the  unity  that  pervades  works  framed 
out  of  such  a  chaos,  and  the  genius  which  could  stamp  the 
ancient  legends  with  a  character  so  foreign  to  their  original 
import. 

The  irony  in  which  Sophocles  appears  to  ub  to  have  dis- 
played the  highest  powers  of  his  art,  is  not  equally  cod- 
spicuoug  in  all  his  remaining  plays,  though  we  believe  the 
I  perception  of  it  to  be  indispensable  for  the  full  enjoyment 
of  every  one  of  them.  We  shall  for  this  reason  be  led  to 
dwell  less  upon  some  of  his  greatest  masterpieces,  than  upon 
works  which  are  commonly  deemed  of  inferior  value.  Bill 
we  shall  begiu  with  those  in  which  the  poet's  intention  is 
most  apparent,  and  shall  thus  perhaps  be  enabled  to  find  a 
clue  to  it  where  it  is  less  clearly  disclosiHl.  We  are  thus  led  in 
the  first  place  to  consider  two  of  those  foundtxl  on  the  Theban 
legends. 

Though  it  is  not  certain  whether  (FAlipus  King  and 
(Edipus  af  CohnuJi  were  parts  of  one  original  design,  it  is 
at  least  probable  that  the  contrast  by  which  the  effect  of  each 
is  so  much  heightened  entered  into  the  ]X)et''s  plan.  Bach 
indeed  is  complete  in  itself,  and  contains  every  thing  requisite 
for  the  full  inulerstanding  and  enjoyment  of  it :  and  yet  each 
acquires  a  new  force  and  beauty  from  a  comparison  with  the 
other.     Wq  shall  therefore  consider  them  successively. 

The  opening  scene  of  the  first  (Sdipus  exhibits  the  people 
of  Cadnms  bowed  down  under  the  weight  of  a  terrible  calamity. 
A  devouring  pestilence  is  ravjiging  its  fields,  and  desolating 
its  city.  The  art  of  man  has  hitherto  availed  nothing  to  check 
its  progress :  the  aid  of  the  gods  haa  been  implored  in  vain. 


Oft  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


495 


The  altarti  have  blazed,  and  the  leinples  reeked  with  incense: 
yet  the  victims  of  llie  Destroying  Power  continue  to  fall  on 
every  side,  frequent  as  ever.  The  streets  are  constantly  re- 
sounding with  the  ptean:  but  its  strains  are  still  interrupted 
by  the  voice  of  wailing.  In  this  extremity  of  affliction  how- 
ever a  gleam  of  hope  shoots  from  one  quarter  through  the 
general  gloom.  The  royal  house  has  been  hitherto  exempt 
from  the  overwhelming  evil.  The  king,  happy  in  the  fiffVction 
of  his  consort,  and  surrounded  by  a  flourishing  family,  seems 
alone  to  stand  erect  above  the  flood  of  evils  with  which  his 
people  are  struggling,  and  under  which  they  arc  ready  to  sink. 
To  his  fortune  and  wisdom  the  afflicted  city  now  looks  for 
deliverance.  It  has  not  been  forgotten  that,  on  a  former 
occa.sion,  when  Thebes  was  smitten  with  a  scour^  almost 
equally  grievous,  the  marvellous  sagacity  of  (Kdipus  solved 
the  enigma  on  which  its  fate  depended.  There  is  therefore 
good  ground  for  hoping  that  his  tried  prudence,  aided  by 
the  favour  of  llie  gods,  may  once  more  succeed  in  penetrating 
to  the  mysterious  cause  of  the  present  calamity,  and  may 
contrive  means  of  relief.  With  this  belief  a  throng  of  sup- 
pliants of  all  ages,  headed  by  the  ministers  of  the  temples, 
lias  come  in  solemn  procession  to  the  royal  palace,  and  has 
seated  itself  on  the  steps  of  the  altars  before  its  vestibule, 
bearing  the  sacred  ensigns  with  wliich  the  miserable  arc  wont 
to  implore  succour  from  the  powerful.  Informed  of  their 
approach,  the  Icing  himself  comes  forth  to  hear  their  com- 
plaints, and  receive  their  requests.  His  generous  nature  is 
touched  by  the  piteous  spectacle,  and  though  himself  unliurt, 
he  feels  for  tlie  stroke  under  which  his  people  suffers.  The 
public  distress  has  long  been  the  object  of  his  ]>atemal  cares : 
already  he  has  taken  measures  for  relieving  it :  lie  has  sent 
a  messenger  to  the  oracle  which  ha<l  guided  his  steps  in  other 
momentous  junctures  by  its  timely  warnings,  and  had  brought 
him  to  his  present  state  of  greatness  and  glory :  the  answer 
of  the  Delphic  god  is  hourly  exp<?cted,  without  which  even 
the  wisdom  of  (Kdipus  himself  can  devise  no  remedy. 

At  the  moment  the  envoy  arrives  with  joyful  tidings. 
Apntio  has  revealed  to  him  the  cause  of  the  evil  and  the 
means  of  removing  it.  The  land  lulmurs  under  a  cin*se  drawn 
upon  it  by  the  guilt  of  man  :   it  is  the  stain  of  blood    that 


406 


On  ifte  Irony  of  Sophorl^». 


has  pttisoned  all  the  sources  of  life;  the  cnme  must  be  ex- 
piated, tho  pollution  purged.  Vet  the  oracle  which  declares 
the  nature  of  the  deed  is  silent  as  to  the  name  of  the  criminaJ ; 
he  is  denounced  as  the  object  of  divine  and  human  vengeance; 
but  his  i>crson  is  not  described,  his  alxidc  is  not  disclosed, 
except  by  the  intiniatiou  that  the  laud  is  cursed  by  his  pre- 
sence. Tlie  sagacity  of  (Kdipus  is  still  required  to  detect 
the  secret  on  wliieh  the  safety  of  his  people  depends ;  and 
he  confidently  undertakes  to  bring  it  to  light.  The  suppliant 
multitude,  their  wor»t  fears  quieted,  better  hopes  revived, 
withdraw  in  calm  reliance  on  the  king  and  the  god :  and 
the  Chorus  ap|>earing  at  the  summons  af  (Kdipus,  cheered 
yet  perplexed  by  the  mysterious  oracltf,  partially  stxithed  by 
its  promises,  but  still  trembling  with  timid  suspeustf,  pours 
forth  a  plaintive  strain,  in  which  it  describes  the  horrors  of 
its  present  condition,  and  implores  the  succour  of  its  tutelary 
deities. 

During  this  pause  the  spectator  has  leisure  to  reflect, 
how  different  all  is  from  what  it  seems.  The  wrath  of  heaven 
has  been  pointed  against  the  afflicted  city,  only  that  it  mirjht 
fall  with  concentrated  force  on  the  head  of  a  single  man ;  and 
he  who  is  its  object  stiuids  alone  calm  and  secure  :  unconscious 
of  his  own  misery  he  can  afford  pity  for  the*  unfortunate :  to 
him  all  look  up  for  succour:  and,  as  in  the  plenitude  of 
wisdom  and  power,  he  undertakes  to  trace  the  evil,  of  which 
he  is  himself  the  sole  author,  to  its  secret  source. 

Id  the  meanwhile  the  king  lias  deliberated  with  his  kins- 
man Creon,  and  now  appears  to  proclaim  his  will  and  publish 
his  measures.  To  the  criminal,  if  he  shall  voluntarily  discover 
himself,  he  offers  leave  to  retire  from  tlie  country  with  im- 
punity :  to  whoever  shall  make  him  known»  whether  citir-en 
or  strauger,  hirge  reward  and  royal  favour:  but  should  this 
gracious  invitation  prove  ineffectual,  then  he  threatens  the 
guilty  with  the  utmost  rigour  of  justice;  and  iinnlly,  should 
man's  arm  he  too  short,  he  consigns  the  offender  by  a  solemn 
imprecation  to  the  vengeance  of  the  gtxls.  The  same  curse 
he  denounces  against  h!m<ielf,  if  he  knowingly  hai*boui-8  the 
man  of  blood  under  his  roof,  and  a  like  one  against  idl  who 
refuse  to  aid  him  in  his  search.  The  Cliorus,  after  protesting 
its  innocence,  offers  advice.     Next  to  Apollo  the  blind  seer 


Tiresius  is  reputed  to  pu^esa  the  largest  ^liare  of  supernatural 
knowledge.  From  him  the  tnilh  which  the  oracle  lias  with- 
held may  be  best  ascertained.  But  Gi^dipuA  has  anticipated 
this  prudent  counsel,  and  on  CreonV  suggestion  has  already 
sent  for  Tiresias,  and  is  surprized  that  he  has  not  yet  arrived. 
At  length  the  venerable  man  apjioars.  His  orbs  of  ontward 
sight  have  long  been  quenched :  but  so  much  the  clearer  and 
stronger  is  the  light  which  shines  inward,  and  enables  him 
to  discern  the  hidden  things  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  king 
conjures  him  to  exert  his  prophetic  power  for  the  deliverance 
of  his  country  and  its  ruler.  But  instead  of  a  ready  com- 
pliance, the  request  is  received  with  expressions  of  grief  and 
despondency :  it  is  first  evaded,  and  at  length  peremptorily 
refused.  The  indignation  of  (Kdipua  is  roused  by  tlie  un- 
feeling denial,  and  at  length  he  is  provoked  to  declare  his 
suspicion  that  Tiresias  has  l>een  himself,  so  far  as  his  blindness 
peruiilted,  an  accessary  to  the  regicide.  The  charge  kindles 
in  its  turn  the  anger  of  the  seer,  and  extorts  from  him  the 
dreadful  secret  which  he  had  resolved  to  suppress.  He  bids 
his  accuser  obey  his  own  recent  proclamation,  and  thencefor- 
ward iis  tlie  perjietrator  of  the  deed  which  had  polluted  the 
land,  to  seal  his  unhallowed  lips.  Enraged  at  the  audacious 
recrimination,  (Edipus  taunts  Tiresias  with  his  blindness : 
a  darkness,  not  of  the  eyes  only,  but  of  the  mind ;  he  is  a 
child  of  night,  whose  puny  malice  can  do  no  hurt  to  one 
whose  eyes  are  open  to  the  light  of  day.  Yet  who  can  have 
prompted  the  old  man  to  the  impudent  calumny?  AVho  but 
the  counsellor  at  whose  suggestion  he  had  been  consulted  ? 
The  man  wlio,  when  Gildipus  and  his  children  are  removed, 
stands  nearest  to  the  throne?  It  is  a  conspiracy — a  plot 
laid  by  Creon,  and  hatched  by  Tiresias.  The  suspicion  once 
admitted  becomes  a  settled  convictitm,  and  the  king  deplores 
the  condition  of  royalty,  which  he  finds  thus  exposed  to  the 
assaults  of  envy  and  ambition.  But  his  resentment,  vehement 
as  it  is,  at  Creon's  ingratitude,  is  almost  forgotten  in  his 
abhorenoe  and  contempt  of  the  hoary  impostor  who  has  sold 
himself  to  the  traitor.  Even  his  boasted  art  is  a  juggle  and 
a  lie.  Else,  wliy  was  it  not  exerted  when  the  Sphinx  pro- 
pounded her  fatal  riddle?  The  seer  then  was  not  Tiresia:* 
but  (Edipufi.     The  lips  then  closed  by  the  consciousness  of 


^9ii 


Oft  the  frtany  of  Sophocles. 


iguuraiK-e  have  now  been  o|>ene<I  by  the  love  of  gold.  His 
uge  alone  screens  him  from  immediate  punishment :  the  partner 
of  his  guilt  will  not  escape  so  easily.  Tiresias  answers  by 
repeating  hh  declaration  in  8till  plainer  terms;  but  as  at  the 
king'^s  indignant  command  he  it*  about  to  retire,  he  drops  an 
allusion  to  his  birth,  which  reminds  (Edipus  of  a  secret  which 
he  has  not  yet  unriddled.  Instead  however  of  satisfying  bis 
curiosity,  the  prophet  once  again:,  in  language  still  more  dis- 
tinct than  Ijeforc,  describes  his  present  condition  and  predicts 
his  fate. 

This  scene  completes  the  exposition  that  was  begun  in 
tlie  preceding  one.  The  contrast  between  the  real  blindness 
and  wretchedness  of  (Edipus  and  his  fancied  wisdom  and 
greatness  can  lie  carried  no  further,  than  when  he  contemptu- 
ously rejects  the  truth  which  he  is  seeking  and  has  found, 
and  makes  it  aground  of  quarrel  with  a  faithful  frien<!.  The 
Chorus,  in  its  next  song»  only  interprets  the  irony  of  the 
action,  when  it  asks,  who  is  the  guilty  wretch  against  whom 
the  oracle  has  let  loose  the  ministers  of  vengeance?  Where 
can  be  his  lurkingplacer  It  must  surely  be  in  some  savage 
forest,  in  aome  dark  cave,  or  rocky  glen,  among  the  haunts 
of  wild  beasts,  that  the  miserable  fugitive  hides  himself  from 
his  pursuers.  Who  can  believe  that  he  is  dwelling  in  the 
heart  of  the  city,  in  the  royal  palace !  that  he  is  seated  on 
the  throne ! 

It  does  not  belong  to  our  present  purpose  to  dwell  on 
the  following  scenes,  in  which  the  fearful  mystery  is  gradually 
unfolded.  The  art  with  which  the  poet  has  contrived  to 
sustain  the  interest  of  the  spectator,  by  retiu-ding  the  discovery, 
has  been  always  deservedly  admired.  It  has  indeed  been  loo 
often  considered  as  the  great  excellence  of  this  sublime  poem, 
the  real  beauty  of  which,  as  we  hope  to  shew,  is  of  a  very 
different  kind,  and  infinitely  more  profound  and  heartstirring 
than  mere  ingenuity  can  produce.  But  the  attentive  reader 
who  shall  examine  this  part  of  the  play  from  the  point  of 
view  that  has  been  here  taken,  will  not  fail  to  observe,  among 
numberless  finer  touches  of  irony  with  which  the  dialogue  is 
inlaid,  that  the  pi»et  has  so  constructed  hia  plot,  as  always  to 
evolve  the  sticcessive  steps  of  the  disclosure  out  of  incidents 
which  either  exhibit  the  delusive  security  of  (Edipus  in  the 


he  Irony  ^  Sopnocles. 


499 


>lr*»ngest  light,  or  lend  to  cliDrish  his  confidence,  and  allay  his 
fears.  Thus  tlie  scene  with  Jocasta  in  which  his  apprehen- 
sions are  first  an-akene(3,  arises  out  of  the  suspicion  he  has 
concciv«l  of  Creon,  which,  unjust  and  arbitrary  as  it  is,  is 
the  only  refuge  he  has  l>een  able  to  find  from  the  necessity 
of  believing  Tircsias.  The  tidings  from  Corinth,  by  which  he 
and  Joca-sta  arc  so  elated  as  to  qtiestimi  the  prescience  of  the 
gods,  leads  to  the  discovery  which  fixes  her  doom.  Still 
more  remarkable  is  the  mode  in  which  this  is  connected  with 
the  following  and  final  stage  of  the  solution.  CEdipus  has 
reason  to  dread  that  the  arrival  of  the  herdsman  may  confirm 
his  worst  fears  as  to  the  death  of  Laius.  Yet  he  forgets  this 
as  a  slight  care  in  his  impatience  to  ascertain  his  parentage: 
hence  the  Chorus  hursts  out  into  a  strain  uf  joy  at  the  pro- 
spect of  the  festive  rites  with  wliich  Cithspron- — a  spot  to 
be  henceforth  so  dear  to  the  royal  family — will  be  honoured, 
wlien  tlic  bn]>py  di.scovery  shall  be  made:  and  CKdipns  presses 
the  herdsman  ou  this  subject  with  sanguine  eagerness,  which 
will  bear  no  evasion  or  delay,  and  never  ceases  to  hope  for 
the  best,  until  he  has  extorted  the  truth  which  shews  him 
the  whole  extent  of  his  calamity. 

No  sooner  has  the  film  dropped  from  his  eyes  than  he 
condemns  himself  to  perpetual  darkness,  to  the  state  which, 
but  a  short  time  before,  had  been  the  subject  of  his  taunts 
on  Tircsias.  The  feeling  by  which  he  is  urged  thus  to  verify 
the  seer's  prediction,  is  not  the  liorror  of  the  light  and  of  all 
the  objects  it  can  present  to  him,  but  indignation  at  his  own 
previous  blindness.  The  eyes  which  have  served  him  so  ill, 
which  have  seen  without  discerning  what  it  was  most  important 
for  him  to  know,  shall  be  for  ever  extinguished'.  And  in  this 
condition,  most  wretched,  most  helpless,  he  enters  once  more, 
to  exhibit  a  perfect  contrast  to  his  appearance  in  the  opening 
scene,  and  thus  to  reverse  that  irony,  of  which  we  have  hi- 
therto seen  but  one  side.  While  he  saw  the  light  of  day, 
he  had  been  ignorant,  infatuated,  incapable  of  distinguishing 
truth  from  falsehood,  friend  from  foe.  Now  he  clearly 
nerceives  all  that  concerns  him  ;    he  is  conscious  of  the  differ- 

*  HcnnumV  correction  utd  inurprctBiion  of  the  pMUffe  here  tlluded  to,  v.  1271— 
1274,  seon  indispeiwahly  ncre^wy,  and   restore  one  of  (he  ino#t  beautiful   tonchw 
in  the  pUy. 
Voi,  II.  No.  6.  3  8 


500 


On  ifm  Irony  uf  Si>pkocie« 


ence  betwcwi  hiti  own  shrewdness  and  the  divine  iulelligence: 
he  is  curetl  of  hib  raah  presumption,  of  his  liasty  suspicions, 
of  his  doubttf  and  cares:  he  has  now  a  sure  lest  of  CreMi's 
lincerity,  and  he  finds  that  it  will  stand  the  trial.  Creoa's 
moderation,  discretion,  and  equanimity,  are  beautifully  con- 
trasted in  this  scene,  as  in  that  of  the  altercation,  with  the 
vehement  pojssion  of  CEdipus.  The  mutual  relation  of  the 
two  characters  so  exactly  resembles  that  between  TasM>  and 
Antonio  in  Goethe's  Tasao,  that  tlie  Carman  play  may  serve 
OS  a  commentary  on  this  part  of  the  Greek  one.  And  here 
it  may  be  pro|>er  to  remark  that  Sophocles  has  rendered  auf- 
6ciently  clear  for  an  attentive  reader,  what  has  nevertheless 
been  too  commonly  overlooked,  and  has  greatly  disturbed  many 
in  the  enjoyment  uf  this  play  :  that  (Kdipus,  thuugli  unfor- 
tunate enough  to  excite  our  sympathy,  is  not  so  perfectly 
innocent  as  to  appear  the  victim  of  a  cruel  and  malignant 
power.  The  particular  acts  indeed  which  constitute  his  ca- 
lamity were  involuntarily  committed :  and  hence  in  the  sequel 
he  can  vindicate  himtjelf  from  the  attack  of  Creon,  and  re- 
present liimself  lo  the  villagers  of  Colonus  as  a  man  more 
sinned  against  than  sinning*.  But  still  it  is  no  less  evident 
that  all  the  events  of  his  life  have  arisen  out  of  his  headstrong, 
impetuous  character,  and  could  nut  have  happened  if  he  hod 
not  neglected  the  warning  of  the  god.  His  blindness,  both 
the  inward  and  the  outward,  has  been  self-inflicted!  Now, 
j  as  soon  .as  the  iirst  paroxysm  of  grief  lias  subsided,  he  appears 
idiaatened,  sobered,  humbled:  the  first  and  most  painfid  step 
I'to  true  knowledge  and  inward  peace,  has  been  taken ;  and 
khe  already  feeU  an  assurance,  that  he  is  henceforward  aa 
especial  object  of  divine  protection,  which  will  shield  him 
from  all  ordinary  itl^  and  dangers. 

Here,  where  the  main  theme  of  the  poefs  irony  is  the 
contrast  between  the  appearance  of  good  and  the  reaUty  of 
evil,  these  intimations  of  the  opposite  contrast  are  sufficient. 
But  in  (EdiptiH  at  Coionns  this  new  aspect  of  the  subject 
becomes  the  groundwork  of  the  play.  It  is  not  indeed  so 
strikingly  exhibited  as  the  former,  because  the  fate  of  (Edipus 
is  not  the  sole,  nor  even  tlie  principal  object  of  attention,  but 

•  S68.  Ta  y  3py<t  ftov  X\*xotS67'   Jff-rl   ^aXXnr   .J  ttifMnira. 


On  ike  Irony  of  Sophoriea,  Ml 

is  subordinate  to  aiiother  half  political,  half  religious  interest, 
arising  oiit  <if  the  legends  which  connect  it  with  the  ancient 
glories  and  future  prospects  of  Attica,  and  with  the  sanctuary 
of  ColnniKt.  Still  the  tiaine  conception  which  Is  partially  uik 
folded  in  the  first  play  is  hone  steadily  pursued,  and,  ao  far 
as  the  Thehaii  hero  is  concerned,  is  the  ruling  idea.  In  the 
first  scene  the  appearance  of  (Edipus  presents  a  complete 
reverse  of  that  which  we  witnessed  at  the  opening  of  the  pre- 
ceding plav*  We  now  see  hiiii  stript  of  all  that  then  seemed 
to  render  his  lot  so  enviable,  and  suffering  the  worst  miseries 
to  which  human  nature  is  liable.  He  is  blind,  old,  destitute: 
an  outcast  from  hi»  home,  an  exile  from  his  country^  a  wan* 
derer  in  a  foreign  land :  reduced  to  depend  on  the  guidance 
and  support  of  his  daughter,  who  hersell"  ueetls  protection, 
and  to  subsist  ^  the  scanty  pittance  ufibrded  him  by  the 
compassion  of  strangers,  who,  whenever  they  recognize  him, 
view  him  with  horror.  But  a  change  has  likewise  taken  place 
within  him,  which  compensates  even  for  this  load  of  afflictioo. 
In  the  school  of  adversity  he  has  learnt  patience,  resignation, 
and  content.  The  storm  of  passion  has  subsided,  and  has 
left  him  calm  and  firm.  The  cloud  has  rolled  away  horn 
his  mental  vision,  and  nothing  disturbs  the  clearness  and 
serenitv  of  his  views.  He  not  only  contemplates  the  past 
in  the  light  of  truth,  but  feels  himself  instinct  with  prophetic 
powers.  He  is  conscious  of  a  charmed  life,  safe  from  the 
malice  of  man  and  the  accidents  of  nature,  and  reserved  by 
the  gods  for  the  accomplishment  of  high  purposes.  The 
first  incident  that  occurs  to  him  marks  in  the  most  signal 
manner  the  elevation  to  which  he  has  been  raised  by  his 
ap|urent  fall,  and  the  privilege  he  has  gained  by  the  calamity 
which  separates  him  from  the  rest  of  mankind.  He  has  been 
driven  out  of  Thebes  as  a  wretch  jiolluted,  and  polluting  the 
land.  Yet  he  finds  a  resting  place  in  the  sanctuary  of  the 
awful  goddesses,  the  avengers  of  crime,  whose  unutterablie 
name  tills  every  heart  with  horror,  whose  ground  is  too  holy 
for  any  human  foot  to  tread.  For  him  there  is  no  terror 
in  the  thoiight  of  them:  he  shrinks  not  from  their  presence, 
but  greets  them  as  friends  and  ministers  of  blessing.  He  is, 
m  he  describes  himself,  not  only  a  pious  but  a  sacred  pe^son^ 

'  387-  'If*!'"  yip  IfftVf  iiHrr^itt  t#. 


502 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


But  the  arrival  uf  lainene  exhibits  hiia  in  a  still  more  august 
character.  Feeble  and  helpless  as  he  appears,  he  is  destined 
to  be  one  of  Attica^s  tutelary  heroes:  and  two  powerful  states 
arc  to  dispute  with  one  another  the  possession  of  his  person 
and  the  right  of  paying  honours  to  his  tomb.  The  poet  on 
this  occasion  expresses  the  whole  force  of  the  contrast,  which 
is  the  subject  of  the  play,  in  n  few  emphatic  lines.  (Ed.  Now 
speaka  the  oracle^  my  child?  Ism.  Thou  shait  be  soufifU 
by  them  that  banished  thee^  Living  and  dend,  to  aid  the 
common  weal.  CEd.  ^Vhy,  who  may  pnonper  with  fiich  aid 
as  mine?  Ism.  On  thee  ''tis  Baid^  the  might  of  Thebea 
depends.  {£d.  Now,  when  aWs  lost,  I  am  a  man  indeed. 
Ism.  The  gods  now  raise  the  head  they  oiwe  laid  low''.  In 
the  folluwiug  iicencs  the  most  prominent  object  is  undoubtedly 
the  glory  of  Attica  and  of  Theseus.  The  contest  indeed 
between  the  two  rivals  for  the  possession  or  the  friendship 
of  the  outcast,  the  violence  of  Creon  and  (lie  earnest  suppli- 
cation of  Polyuices,  eerves  to  heighten  our  impression  of  the 
dignity  with  which  (Edipus  is  now  invested  by  the  favour 
of  the  gods.  But  still,  if  the  poet  liad  not  had  a  difierent 
purpose  in  view,  he  would  probably  have  contented  himself 
with  a  less  clalwrate  picture  of  the  stnigglu.  As  it  is,  Creon's 
arrogance  ami  meaiiuess  place  the  nmgnaniuiity  of  the  Attic 
hero  in  the  strangest  relief.  It  is  nut  quite  so  evident  what 
was  the  motive  for  introducing  the  interview  with  Folynices, 
which  seems  at  first  sight  to  liave  very  Uttle  connexion  either 
with  the  fate  and  character  of  CEdipus,  or  with  the  renown 
of  Theseus.  In  this  scene  (Edipus  appears  to  modem  eyes 
in  a  somewhat  unamiable  aspect:  and  at  all  events  it  is  one 
vhich  will  effectually  prevent  us  from  confounding  his  piety 
and  resignation  witli  a  spirit  of  Christian  meekness  and 
charity.  But  to  the  eoTH  of  the  ancients  there  was  probably 
nothing  grating  in  this  vindictive  sternness,  while  it  contri- 
butes a  very  important  service  to  the  poet''s  main  design- 
That  the  resolution  of  (Edipus  sliould  not  be  shaken  by  the 


Wfid^titu  dr,    Ivn.     'Bi*  901  Td  Ktivm*  tpavi  yiyvta&tn  Kpd-rn.    Oti,  "Or"  «»«  St' 
<(/ii.   T ir i* < »,- in' -r'    (fp'    rifd'   af^fi.     Itr/i.     NCc    yn'/i   I*«(m    t"    AftOoist,     ir^(>»9< 


Oil  the  Irony  of  SvphocleS. 


503 


solicitations  of  Creon.  backed  by  threatei  and  force,  was  to 
be  expected  ;  we  now  see  that  hU  angur  U  nut  to  be  softened 
by  the  appeal  which  Polyniccs  makes  to  his  pity  and  his 
parental  aifcction.  He  is  for  ever  alienated  from  his  unnatural 
sons  and  from  Thebes,  and  unalterably  devoted  to  the  generous 
stran^rs  who  have  sheltered  him.  Their  land  Rliall  retain 
him  a  willing  sojourner,  and  in  his  tomb  tiiey  shall  possess  a 
pledge  of  victory  and  of  deliverance  in  danger.  Nothing  now 
remains  but  that  he  should  descend  into  his  last  resting  place, 
hononreH  by  the  express  suininims  of  the  gods,  and  yielding 
a  joyful  obedience  to  tlieir  pleasure.  His  orphan  daughters 
indeed  drop  some  natural  tears  over  the  loss  they  have  sus- 
tained: but  e'ven  their  grief  is  s*K>n  sinitlied  by  tlie  thought 
of  an  end  so  peaceful  and  happy  in  itself,  and  su  full  of 
blessing  to  the  hospitable  land  where  the  hero  reposes. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  the  irony  wc  have  been 
illustrating  is  not  equallv  conspicuous  in  all  the  plays  of 
Sophocles.  In  the  two  (£(lipuscs  we  conceive  it  is  the  main 
feature  in  the  treatment  of  the  subject,  and  is  both  clearly 
indicated  by  tlieir  structure,  and  uncfjuivocaliy  exprest  iu 
numberless  passages.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Electra  it 
may  appear  doubtful  whether  anything  is  gained  by  consider- 
ing the  plot  from  tins  jHiint  of  view,  and  whetiier  we  are 
justiiied  in  attributing  it  to  Sophocles.  The  poet^s  object 
may  seem  to  have  been  merely  to  exhibit  the  heroine  in  a 
series  of  situations,  which  successively  call  forth  the  fortitude, 
the  energy,  the  unconquerable  will,  and  the  feminine  tender- 
ness, which  compose  her  character.  This  object  however  may 
not  Ijc  inconsistent  with  otliers :  and  the  arrangement  of  the 
action  seems  to  point  to  an  ulterior  design;  which  we  sliall 
very  briefly  suggest,  as  there  are  no  marks  which  absolutely 
compel  the  reader  to  recogni:i;e  it.  Tiie  lamentations  of  Electra 
at  her  first  apf>earance  arc  protracted  to  a  length  which  can 
scarcely  l>e  considered  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  an  expo- 
sition oi  her  character  and  situation,  and  we  are  therefore 
rather  led  to  connect  them  with  the  scene  which  precedes 
them :  and  so  regarded  they  certainly  assume  an  ironical 
aspect.  In  the  former  our  attention  was  directed  to  the 
bloodstained  house  of  the  Pelopitls,  the  scene  of  so  many 
crimes,    where  guilt  ha»  heen  ho   long   triumphant,  where  all 


€04 


On  the  /runt/  of  Sophoclet. 


lift  still   luishetl  in   secure   unsuspecting    repose      Hut    alretuly 

l<he  Avenger  is  standing  near  its   threshold,  ready  to  execute 

hitt   errand   of  retributive  justice,    his    success    ensured    I>y    all 

[the  aids  of  human  prudence,   and  by  tlie  »incHon  of  the  go»i. 

ifThe  friends   concert    their  plan  in  n    manner   which   leaves  no 

idoubt   in   the  mtnd   of  the   spectator  that   the  righteous  cause* 

litiU  speedily  prevail.     After  this  Electra*s  inconsolable  grief, 

I'her  despondency,  and  cooiplainls,  are  less  suite<l  to  excite  our 

{sympathy,  than  to  suggest  a  reflexion  on  the  contrast  between 

l-that  apparent  pros}»erity  and  security  of  the  guilty    vfhich  she 

jjn  her  ignorance  deplores,  and  the  iinniiuent  danger  with  which 

|%e  see  them  threatened  by  the  divine  vengeance.     And  this 

[contrast  becomes  still  stronger  when,   by  the  device  of  Orestew, 

[the  last   fear  which  restrained   the  insolence  of  the  crijiiiuals 

tie  removed,    the  last  hope  which  cheered   Electra''8  drooping 

spirit  is  extinguished ;   at  the  same  time  that  the  punishment 

of  the  one,  and  the  deliverance  of  the  other,  are  on  the  [mint 

of  accomplishment^.     Clyteranefttra^s  sophistical  vindication  of 

her  own  conduct  also  assumes  a  tone  of  self  mockery,  which 

is   deeply    tragical,    when    we    remember    that,    while    she    is 

I  pleading,   her   doom   is  sealed,    and   that   the   hand  which  i» 

labout  to  execute  it  is  already  lifted  above  her  head.     Finally, 

[it  is  in  the  moment  of  their  highest  exultation  and  confidence, 

[that  each  of   the  offenders  discovers  the  inevitable  oertaintv 

t>f  their  impending  ruin". 

Of  all  our  poet's  remaining  works,  that  which  stands  lowest 

ftn  general  estimation  appears  to  be  The  Trachminn  Virgins. 

Its  merit  has  been  commonly  supposed  to  consist  in  the  beauty 

of  detacheti   scenes  or   passages :    but   so   inferior   has  it   been 

thought,   as    a  whole,  to  the  other  plays  of  Sophocles,  that    a 


^    Tbis  Kme  aHbrds  a  vn'y  happy  UluscntiAn  nf  the  dliTerancc  betwera  pncdcml 
and  rprbal  irony.     The  poet  make*  Clytemneittra  iiso  irtiat  abe  conceive*  to  be  Ian-  j 
gua^c  uf  bitter  irony,   while  «hc  it  really  uttering  »imple  trith:  7^h.  £t.  vfifn^f.  pvm 
ydfi  tvTVj^oitra  Tuyx"**^"  i  ^'^  ovkovv  'Op/irri]?  Kal  av  TrKiVtToi'  -raft  ;  El.  *t-*-m''- 
^xfT  if^citi  ovx  £irai*  ve  waivo^rv.     AcMtdlDff  to  the  punctuation  and  accentoadaa 
adopted  by  Brunck  and  Hcrmatui,   in  1.  7U^t  Clyteinn(»>tTaonly  taunu  Klcctra  irithout  i 
sn;  irony.     For  the  puc^Ki^^c  of  an  illuBtralion,   h  Jh  not  mutrriHl  how  ."^itphncles  mcatit  I 
the  Jine  to  be  spoken ;   but  in  spite  of  Tricliniun  we  prefer  either  o{,Kavv  with  an  ] 
interrogation  {»»  t\\.1\1)  <n  aviovv.  without  one  ( at  Antig- '.M  ) :  ami  of   choc  tlwi 
former. 

*  Thl«  it  the  moaoiiig   a\   tiic  tai^j^  \^\^  '^^J^°f^\f  ■""  ^t''^^  c4t^«XAtf«1 
waKat  ,  >ee  Hermann*!  note.  '  '  ' 


On  ike  Irojiy  of  Sophoclee.  S9$ 

celebrated  critic  has  not  scrupled  to  express  a  doubt  as  to 
it«  genuineness,  and  to  conjecture  that  it  ought  to  he  ascribed 
to  the  poet^H  sini  luphoii.  This  conjecture  Hermann  (Pritf.) 
rejects  with  great  confidence,  founded  on  his  long  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  j>octical  character  of  Sophocles.  It 
would  seem  however  as  if  his  opinion  wa«  formed  in  con- 
sideration rather  of  the  particular  featiires  of  the  play,  in 
which  he  recognises  the  master's  hand,  than  of  the  entire 
composition,  which,  according;  to  his  view  of  it,  is  defective 
in  some  very  important  points.  The  interest,  he  conceives, 
is  so  unfortunately  divided  between  Hercules  and  Dejanira, 
that  though  the  fate  of  the  hero  was  intended  by  the  poet 
to  be  the  main  spring  of  the  spt'ctator's  fear  and  pity,  his 
aympathy  is  insensibly  transferre<l  to  the  unhappy  victim  of 
conjugal  affection,  who  thus  becomes  in  reality  the  principal 
personage.  Hence  when  her  fate  is  decided,  the  spcctator''H 
BUspcuRe  is  at  an  end:  the  last  act  appears  superHuous;  and 
tlie  sufferings  of  Heri'ulcs,  now  that  the  heroine  is  gone  to 
whom  all  his  vicissitudes  hail  been  referred,  can  no  longer 
excite  any  deep  concern.  This  defect,  Hermann  thinks,  would 
have  been  remedied,  if  the  hero's  sufferings  had  been  exhibited 
in  the  presence  of  Dcjanira,  so  as  to  aggravate  her  affliction : 
and  he  can  scarcely  understand  what  could  have  led  Sophocles 
to  neglect  an  arrangement  so  clearly  preferable  to  that  which 
he  has  adoptocl,  unless  it  may  have  Iwen  the  wish  to  introduce 
a  little  variation  in  the  treatment  of  a  somewhat  hacknied 
argument. 

To  Hermann's  judgement  on  the  genuineness  of  the  piece 
we  most  cordially  assent;  but  for  this  very  reason  we  cannot 
embrace  his  opinion  of  its  supposed  imperfections,  and  at  the 
risk  of  being  thought  superstitious  admirers  of  a  great  name, 
we  are  inclined  to  infer  from  his  objections  to  the  composition, 
not  that  Sophocles  was  on  this  occasion  either  deficient  in 
'  invention,  or  willing  to  sacrifice  beauty  to  the  affectation  of 
originality — a  sjiecies  of  vanitv  which  his  other  works  afford 
no  ground  for  imputing  to  him :  but  that  his  design  wbs 
not  exactly  such  as  the  critic  conceives.  It  appears  to  us 
that  in  fact  Hermann  has  overlooked  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant features  of  the  subject,  which,  if  duly  considered, 
satisfactorily  accoinits  for  all  thot  according  to  his  view  dis- 


506 


On  thtf  Irony  of  S'uphocies. 


turbs  the  unity  and  bynmiflry  of  the  Jrama.  The  fate  of 
Hercules  is  unduubtetily  the  point  ou  which  the  interest  of 
the  pluy  was  lueaut  tu  turn.  To  it  our  uttentiun  is  tlirected 
from  beginning  to  end.  Coin|>ared  with  Hercules,  Dejanira 
is  a  very  io sign iti cant  person :  not  indeed  in  the  eyes  of  a 
modern  reader,  of  whom  Herniann''s  remark  may  be  perfectly 
true,  that  the  sympathy  of  the  spcctaEnrs  is  directed  more 
to  her  than  to  the  hero.  In  her  nc  tind  much  to  admire, 
to  love,  and  to  pity :  in  him  we  see  notliing  hut  a  great 
spirit  almost  overpowered  by  the  intensity  of  bodiiv  suiTerinjf. 
But  the  question  is,  wa«  this  the  light  in  which  tliey  were 
viewed  by  the  xpectators  for  whom  Sophocles  wrote.  Non- 
it  seems  clear  tlial  to  them  Hercules  was  more  tlian  a  suffering 
or  struggling  hero:  he  was  a  deified  person,  who  had  assuracni 
a  blessed  and  immortal  nature'^  had  become  an  object  of  re- 
ligious adi>ration,  and  was  frequently  invoked  for  aid  and 
protection  in  ^^'asons  of  difficulty  and  danger.  It  «as  frmn 
the  funeral  pile  on  the  top  of  CEt^i  that  he  a&cended,  a» 
Sophocles  elsewhere  describes'",  all  radiant  with  fire  divine, 
to  enjoy  the  company  of  the  gods  above.  Tlie  image  of  bis 
eartlUy  career  could  never  be  contemplated  by  his  worshippers 
without  reference  to  this,  its  hnppy  and  glorious  termination. 
And  therefore  it  catmot  be  contended  that  the  poet  did  nut 
take  this  feeling  into  account,  because  in  the  play  itself  he 
h^n  intraduce<l  no  allusion  to  the  apotheosis.  It  does  not 
follow  because  there  Hercules  himself,  according  to  Hennann'*s 
observation,  is  descnbed  as  quitting  life  with  reluctance,  like 
one  of  llomer^s  lieroes,  whose  soul  descends  to  Orcus  bewail- 
ing its  fate,  and  the  vigour  and  youth  which  it  leaves  behind", 
that  therefore  the  spectators  were  expected  to  forget  all  their 
religious  notions  of  him,  or  to  consider  him  abstracted  from 
the  associations  with  which  he  was  habitunlly  connected  in 
their  thoughts.     Kut  in  fact  his  blissful  immortality  is  inani- 


*  OiL  A.  009,  auri^  tier   aOavHroun  Beoitrtr  Ttpvevat  in  6<iXffr«,  sat  t^»i  tnA- 

'^  Phil.  ^i6,   "W  i  x**'^*"'*"    <i*'V>)   Oiiotv  ■wKaSn   -wdvif.   0«in  rvpi  -rtvw^Mfc^- 

'*  lS<t3.  «tv  i-rixapToy  TtXfouo'  dtKoiacov  iftyo¥,  "tjuainrls  etltm  foTtls  aatmi^ 
MRirn  invlU  ad  Orenm  mhit.  &v  iroT-fiov  yo6f<!aa.  XtvaHv  difio-rfra  vnl  •i^nc."  i 
Henn. 


he  Inmy  o/Sopftoelett^ 


507 


feally  implictl  in  that  consummation  of  hi»  labours,  that  final 
reli'use  from  toil  and  hnrdship,  which  was  announce<l  to  him 
by  the  oracle,  the  mi^aning  of  which  he  did  luit  understand 
till  he  was  experiencing  its  fulfihnent.  This  mysterious  pre- 
diction it  is,  which  at  tlie  beginning  of  the  play  calU  up 
Dejanira^  hopes  and  fears  into  confltct»  and  tlie  marvellous 
mode  of  its  accomplishnienc  is  the  subject  of  the  ensuing 
scenes. 

The  opening  Kcne,  which,  though  Ic&s  artificial  than  those 
of  the  other  plays  of  Sophocles,  ought  not  to  l>e  confounded 
with  the  prologues  of  Euripides,  while  it  unfohls  to  us  the 
anxiety  and  gloomy  forebodings  of  Dejaniro,  places  her  cha- 
racter in  the  jwint  of  view  which  is  nucessury  to  thu  unity 
of  the  piece.  Her  happine&.s,  her  very  being,  are  bound  up 
iu  that  of  Hercules.  The  most  fortunate  event  of  her  life 
had  once  seemed  to  her  tlie  issue  of  the  struggle  by  which 
Hercules  won  her  for  his  bride.  Now  indee<J,  on  looking 
back  to  the  past,  she  is  struck  with  the  melancholy  reilexion, 
that  this  union,  the  object  of  ficr  most  ardent  wishes,  had 
Iiitherto  been  jjroduclive  of  scarcely  anything  but  disappoint- 
ntont  and  vexation.  The  hero,  for  whom  alone  she  lived, 
had  been  abnost  perpetually  separated  from  her  by,  a  series 
of  hazardous  adventures,  which  kept  her  a  prey  to  constant 
alarm  and  disquietude.  Short  and  rare  as  his  visits  had 
always  been,  the  interval  which  had  elapsed  since  the  last 
bad  been  unusually  long;  slie  had  been  kept  in  more  than 
ordinary  ignorance  of  his  situation  :  she  begins  to  dread  the 
worst,  and  is  inclint^l  to  interpret  the  ambiguous  tablet,  which 
he  left  in  her  hands  at  parting,  in  the  most  unfavorable 
manner.  The  information  she  receives  from  her  son,  while 
it  relieves  her  most  painful  fears,  convinces  her  that  the  mo- 
mentous crisis  has  arrived,  which  will  either  secure,  or  for 
ever  destroy  her  happiness  with  that  of  her  hero.  A  last 
labour  remains  for  him  to  achieve,  in  which  he  is  destined 
either  to  fall,  or  to  reap  the  reward  of  his  toils  in  a  life 
unembittered  bv  pain  or  sorrow.  Soon  however  she  hears 
that  the  crisis  hns  ended  happily,  and  for  a  moment  joy  takes 
undivided  possession  of  her  breast.  But  tlio  glad  tidings  are 
quickly  followed  by  the  announcement  of  n  new  calamity,  the 
danger  of  losing  the  affections  of  Hercules,  or  of  sharing  them 
Vol..  11.  No.fi.  3T 


\J' 


SOB 


On  thf:  Irony  of  Suphocien. 


with  another.  He  has  reacha!  the  j^oal :  liut  hy  thft  Rftme 
turn  of  fortune  she  is  removet!  farlhi-r  than  i!ver  frrnn  the 
object  of  her  desires:  the  sainc  gali*  which  has  wafted  hiin 
into  the  haven  of  rest,  has  wellnigh  wrecked  her  hopes.  Still 
even  against  this  evil  she  has  long  had  a  remedy  in  store, 
which,  if  it  succeeds,  will  unite  her  lot  to  that  of  Hercules 
by  indissoluble  bonds:  no  woman  shall  again  dispute  his  love 
with  her.  But  now  the  irony  of  fate  displayfi  itself  in  the 
cruelleBt  manner:  all  her  wishes  shall  be  granted,  but  only 
to  verify  her  worst  fears.  The  labours  of  Hercules  arc  at 
an  end  :  she  herself  ha^  disabled  him  from  ever  undertaking; 
another.  No  rival  will  henceforward  divert  his  love*  from  her: 
his  eyes  will  soon  be  closed  upon  all  earthly  forms.  But 
all  this  is  hut  a  bitter  mockery :  in  truth  she  has  made  him 
in  whose  wellbeing  her  own  was  wrapt  up,  supremely  wretched; 
she  has  converted  his  affection  for  herself  into  deadly  hatred. 
She,  who  was  able  to  ruin  him,  has  no  means  of  saving  him  : 
the  only  proof  she  can  give  of  her  fidelity  and  love  is,  to  die. 

That  the  death  of  Dejanira  is  indi.ippnsably  necessary, 
every  one  will  acknowledge;  but  those  who  think,  as  Hermann, 
that  with  it  the  play  really  ends,  will  perhaps  agree  with  him 
in  his  opinion,  that  it  ought  to  liave  been  reserved  to  a  later 
period  in  the  action.  According  to  the  view  we  have  here 
taken  of  the  poetV  design,  he  could  not  have  chosen  a  more 
seasonable  time  for  it.  Had  it  been  longer  postponed,  it  would 
merely  have  disturbed  the  eifect  <if  the  last  scene  without  any 
ccmipensating  advantage.  This  scene,  if  we  lu-e  not  mistaken, 
is  so  far  from  a  superfluous  and  cumbrous  appendage,  that  it 
contains  the  solution  of  the  whole  enigma,  and  itlaces  all  ttiat 
goes  before  in  its  true  light.  Hercules  ap|>ears  distracted 
not  only  by  his  bodily  torments,  but  also  by  furious  pas- 
sions: by  the  sense  of  an  unmerited  evil,  perlidiously  inflicted 
by  a  hand  which  he  had  loved  and  trusted.  The  discovery 
of  Dejanira's  innocence  likewise  reveals  to  him  the  real  nature 
and  causes  of  his  situation:  it  exhibits  his  fate,  though  out- 
wardly hard  an<l  terrible,  as  the  fulfilment  of  a  gracious  and 
cheering  prediction  Henceforth  his  murmurs  cease,  his  angry 
passions  subside.  He  himself  indeed  tlocs  not  yet  |>enetrate 
into  thi*  depth  of  the  mystery ;  but  when,  as  by  8  prophetic 
impulse,  he  directs  Hyllus  to  transport  him  to  the  summit  of 


fhi  the  Irony  of  Sophocletf. 


A09 


CE(a,  and  there,  without  tear  or  groan,  to  apply  the  lord* 
to  his  funeral  pile,  he  leads  the  spectators  to  tlie  reflexion 
whicli  solves  all  difficulties,  and  melts  all  discords  into  the 
clearest  harmony.  Dejaniru's  wishes  liave  been  fulfilled,  not 
indeed  in  her  own  &ense,  but  in  an  infinitely  higher  one.  The 
gods  have  decreed  tn  bestow  on  Hercules  not  merely  lengtl) 
of  days,  bpt  immortality;  not  merely  ease  and  quiet,  but 
celestial  bliss.  She  indeed  lias  lust  tiim,  but  only  as  she  must 
have  done  in  any  case  sooner  or  later ;  and  instead  of  forfeiting 
his  affection,  she  ha.s  been  enabled  to  put  the  most  unequivocal 
seal  u|>(>n  her  faith  and  devotedness. 

That  this  last  scene  should  appear  tedious  to  a  modern 
reader,  is  nut  surprising:  but  this  may  be  owing  to  causes 
which  have  nothing  to  do  wilji  its  dramatic  merits.  We  are 
accustomed  to  view  Hercules  cither  through  the  medium  of 
the  arts,  a.s  a  strong  ninn,  or  through  that  of  some  svfltem  of 
mythology,  a.s  a  political  or  ethical  personification,  or  it  may 
be  as  a  mundane  genius,  a  god  of  light.  But  it  is  probable 
that  a  very  different  impression  was  produced  by  his  appear- 
ance on  the  Athenian  stage,  aud  that  a  representation  of  the 
last  incidents  of  his  mortal  state,  was  there  witnessed  with 
lively  sympatliy.  Tlus  interest  may  have  extended  to  details 
which  in  us  caiuiot  produce  the  slightest  emotion,  and  hence 
the  introduction  of  the  concUiding  injunction  about  lole,  which 
is  the  most  obscure  as  well  as  repulsive  passage  in  the  whole 
piece,  umy  haAe  had  an  adecjuute  nmtive,  which  we  cannot 
fully  comprehend.  It  certainly  ought  not  to  prevent  us  from 
enjoying  the  lM?auty  of  the  whole  ctimposition,  which  though 
perhaps  inferior  to  the  other  works  of  Sophocles,  is  not  un- 
worthy of  the  author  of  the  greatest  among  them. 

In  the  Aj(i<v  the  poet  may  seem  to  have  made  a  singular 
exception  to  his  own  practice  as  well  as  to  that  of  all  other  great 
dramatic  writers,  by  distinctly  expounding  the  moral  of  his 
pluy,  and  that  not  at  the  end,  but  at  the  beginning  of  it 
If  we  should  suppose  him  to  have  done  so,  we  must  also  belieTe 
that  he  at  the  same  time  determined  the  point  of  view  from 
which  he  meant  the  whole  to  be  considered.  The  irony  of 
I^linerva  first  draws  Ajax  into  a  terrible  exhibition  of  his 
miserable  phrcnzy.  and  she  then  takes  ixtasion  from  it  to 
pronounce  a  solemn  warning  again:>t  the  arrogance  which  had 


510 


On  the  Irony  of  Sopftocfes. 


involved    wj  greaL  n  hero  in    so   dreadful   a   calamity.       The 
following   scenes  down  to   the  death  of  Ajax,   might   appear 
to  have  been  intended  merely  to  enforct*  this  impression,   by 
representing  the  language  and  the  effects  of  his  despair  when 
rcstorctl  to  the  conetciungness  nf  his  real  situation.     The  con- 
cluding part,  that  which  follows  the  main  catastrophe,  would 
according   to  this  view   have  been    introduced    with  as  little 
necessity  as  the  part  corresponding  to  it  in  the  play  last  ex- 
amined,   though  it    might  be  allowed  possible  to  fiud   some 
excuse  for  the  addition  in  national  opinions  and  feelings  foreign 
to  our  own.     If  however  this  were  the  correct   view   of  the 
I  tragedy,  it   would  certainly   deserve   to  be  considered  as  the 
[most  faulty  in  its  comjiositinn  of  all  the  nmaining  works  of 
I  Sophocles.      The  fault  would  lie  not  merely  in   the  want  of 
I  unity  between  the  two  portions,  which   would  be  only  acci- 
dentally connected  with  one  another  and  would  liave  no  interest 
'  in  common,  but  also  in  the  dramatic  anticlimax,  in  the  gradual 
abatement  of  the  terror  and  pty   which   the  op?mng  of  the 
,  piny  so  powerfully  inspires.      For  Ajax  ha-^  no  sooner  recovered 
his  senses  than    the   thought  of  death  occurs   to  him  as  at>S(V 
hitely  necessary.     But  he  contemplates  it,  not  as  an  evil,  but 
ka  certain   remedy  and  refuge.      He  finds  consolation   in   the 
ciuusness  of  his  unalterable  resolution   not   to  survive  his 
[ahame,  and  in  the  conviction  that  no  human  i)ower  can  prevent 
'the  execution  of  his  purpose.      The  nearer  his  end  approaches 
the  more  collected  and  tranquil  be  becomes:  so  that  we  nre 
\  led  to  view  him  in  a  new  light,  and  forget  the  awftd  lesson 
inculcatetl  by   the  goddess  in  the  cnx-ning  scene. 

It  would  perhaps  be  prcsuniploous  to  n.ssert  that  the  taste 
of  Sophocles  was  too  pure,  to  admit  an  episode  at  the  end  of 
a  play  such  as  that  of  Johann^tt  ParrU'idn  whicli  disHgures 
Schiller's  Wilhelm  Teli.  But  on  the  other  hand  we  ought 
not  to  impute  such  a  defect  to  any  of  his  compositions,  without 
carefully  examining  whether  the  parts  which  seem  to  hang 
loosely  together,  may  not  be  more  intimately  united  imdcr  the 
surface.  On  the  other  point  we  may  venture  to  speak  more 
confidently,  and  to  maintain  that  Sophocles  could  never  ha\*e 
meant  to  concentrate  the  whole  moral  effect  of  a  tragedy  in 
the  first  scene,  so  that  it  should  be  gradually  softened  and 
weakened  as  the  action  proceeded,  and  that  a  construction  of 


On  the  Iruny  uf  Softhociet. 


SU 


any  of  his  workit  wliich  implies  such  u  conclusion  must  havu 
mistnken  his  (le»ign.  In  the  present  iubtance  it  seems  possible 
to  shew  that  the  poet's  thought,  when  rightly  ctmccivetl,  lends 
to  a  point  of  view  from  which  nothing  appears  either  Buper- 
fluous  or  misplaced  in  the  piece 

The  hero's  first  appearance  exhibits  bim  in  the  lowest 
dcptli  of  his  humiliation.  The  love  of  glory  is  his  ruling 
passion,  and  dijtappointmcnt  in  the  pursuit  of  honour  lias 
goaded  him  to  phren/.v.  Through  the  interposition  of  the 
gods  his  vengeance  lias  been  baffled  in  a  manner  which  must 
for  ever  exjxise  him  to  the  derision  of  bis  enemies.  The  delight 
and  exultation  which  he  expresses  at  his  imaginary  triumph 
serve  to  mcR-mtre  the  greatness  of  his  defeat,  and  the  bitter- 
ness of  tlie  anguish  which  awaits  him  with  the  return  of  rejsoii. 
Ulyasefl  himself  cannot  witness  !Kj  Ireincndous  a  reverse,  so 
complete  a  prostraliun,  even  of  a  rival,  without  pity.  But 
the  rcHcxions  which  the  spectacle  suggests  to  him  nnd  Minerva, 
tend  to  divert  our  thoughts  from  what  is  peculiar  and  extra- 
ordinary in  the  situation  of  Ajax,  and  to  fix  them  on  fhc 
cunniiun  lot  of  human  nature.  All  mortal  strength  is  weak- 
ness, all  mortal  prosperity  vain  and  transient,  and  consequently 
nil  mortal  pride  is  delusion  and  madness.  Wlicn  man  is  most 
elated  with  the  gifts  of  fortune,  most  confident  in  his  security, 
then  ift  his  fall  most  certain :  he  is  safe  ami  strong  only  while 
he  feels  and  acknowledges  his  own  nothingness.  Ajax  in  the 
contrast  l>etween  his  fancied  success  nnd  his  real  calamity,  is 
only  a  signal  example  of  a  very  common  blindness.  The 
design  of  these  reflexions  was  prolmbly  not  to  extract  a  moral 
from  the  scene,  which  needed  not  the  aid  of  language  to  convey 
its  lesson,  but  to  prepare  us  for  the  contemplation  of  the  other 
side  of  the  subject,  which  is  inimediately  presented  to  us.  For 
in  tlie  next  scene  the  hero''s  position  is  totally  changed.  The 
|)a.st  indeed  is  innnutable,  the  future  affords  not  a  glimpse  of 
bo|>e;  but  now  he  has  awoke  from  his  dream,  he  is  healed 
of  his  phrenzy ;  he  knows  the  worst  that  has  befallen  him, 
and  that  can  befall.  The  discovery,  it  is  true,  is  attended, 
as  Tecmessa  says,  with  a  new  pain,  <nie  from  which  his  mad- 
ness had  till  now  protected  him:  but  it  is  likewise  a  medicine 
which  restores  him  to  new  health,  and  tlic  pain  itself  a  symptom 
of  his  recovery  from  the  long  disease,  of  which  h\>  latt^  phrcnzy 


512 


Oh  the  /runt/  of  Sophocles- 


had  been  only  tlie  last  uiul  most  vjoWiit  paroxyBiii :  it  givcB 
him  a  truasure  which  be  never  [>ui>sest  liefore,  that  self-know- 
ledge and  setf-c-uutrol  which  Minerva's  last  wurdit  declared  to 
be  the  conditiun  and  earnest  of  the  favour  of  the  gud». 

It  is  possible  that  many  readers  will  think  this  a  very 
exaggerated,  if  not  a  totally  false  de&cription  of  the  state  of 
mind  and  feeling  which  Ajax  disclo&cs  in  the  progress  of  the 
play-  It  has  been  very  commonly  stippused  that  the  poet''a 
aim  was  to  exhibit  in  his  character  untameable  pride  and 
inflexible  obstinacy,  hardened  and  strained  to  the  utmost  bv 
despair :  a  spirit  \vhich  will  not  yield  even  to  the  gods,  and 
instead  of  bowing  beneath  the  stroke  of  their  displeasure, 
rises  the  higher  by  the  recoil,  and  asserts  its  own  freedom 
and  dignity  by  a  voluntary  death.  If  this  be  so,  the  first 
scene  must  present  a  totally  different  aspect  from  that  in 
which  we  have  hitherto  considered  it ;  it  will  be  nothing 
more  than  the  (x:casion  whicli  enables  the  hero  to  display 
this  unconquerable  energy  of  soul ;  and  the  more  wc  eyni- 
pathize  with  his  stern  and  lofty  nature,  the  less  can  wc  be 
affectcfl  by  the  moral  reflexions  of  Ulysses  and  the  goddess, 
which  would  thus  appear  to  he  either  unmeaning  commonplace, 
or  to  be  designed  not  to  indicate,  but  to  counteract  the  im- 
pression whicli  the  whole  action  is  calculated  to  produce. 
This  however  may  be  looked  upon  as  a  sUght  objection :  the 
main  qoestion  is,  whether  the  language  and  demeanor  of  Ajax 
after  his  recovery  justifies  the  common  view  of  the  temper 
and  sentiments  attributed  to  him  by  the  poet,  and  the  in- 
ferenceii  that  liave  been  drawn  from  them  as  to  the  general 
design  of  the  phiy-  And  on  this  it  must  be  observed,  that 
though  it  soon  becomes  apparent  that  the  purpose  of  self- 
destruction  is  irrevocably  fixed  in  the  mind  of  Ajax,  though 
he  steadily  resists  both  the  friendly  counsels  of  the  Chorus, 
and  the  pathetic  intreaties  of  Tecmessa;  and  tliough  that 
which  determines  his  resolve,  is  his  quick  sense  of  honour, 
and  his  impatience  of  a  degrading  submission,  still  there  is 
nothing  in  his  words  or  conilurt,  either  in  the  scenes  with 
Tecniessa  and  the  Chorus,  or  in  his  concluding  sobluquy, 
that  indicates  a  hard,  cold,  sullen  mood.  On  the  contrarvi 
when  he  has  learnt  from  Tecniessa  the  whole  extent  of  hii< 
calamity,    he   breaks   oiil    for   the  first    time  of  hh  life   into 


the  ituny  of  Sophocles. 


613 


waitingfi  which  express  the  keenness  of  his  grief:  und  again 
the  sight  of  the  Chorus  drawi;  from  him  a  strain  of  piti'mitt 
exclamations  on  the  cruelty  of  his  fate.  After  this  transient 
burst  of  passion  indeed  he  reco%*ers  his  firmneiiR  and  com- 
posure, gives  directions  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  Inst  wishes 
with  calmness,  and  though  inflexibly  adhering  to  his  pni-pose, 
repels  all  the  attempts  made  to  divert  him  from  it  without 
heat  or  violence.  Uut  so  far  is  he  from  having  retired  into 
the  stronghold  of  a  selfish  pride,  and  shut  himself  up  from 
all  human  sympathy^  that  in  the  midst  of  his  unalterable 
resolution  his  thoughts  are  more  occupied  with  care  for  others 
than  with  his  own  fate.  His  parental  affection  rushes  in  a 
full  stream  into  his  heart,  as  he  contemplates  his  approaching 
separation  from  its  object,  and  expresses  itself  in  that  tender 
address,  in  which,  while  he  provides  for  the  security  of  his 
child,  and  rejoices  in  the  prospect  of  leaving  behind  him  an 
heir  worthy  of  his  shiehl  and  of  his  fame,  who  shall  avenge 
his  wrongs,  he  dwells  with  delight  on  the  image  of  its  early 
years,  when  the  young  plant,  shelttTiKi  from  everv  rude  blast," 
shall  enjoy  its  carele.s.s  existence,  and  gladden  the  heart  of  the 
widowed  mother,  and  on  the  consolation  and  support  it  will 
afford  to  the  declining  age  of  his  own  parents,  so  soon  to 
be  bereft  of  their  natural  stay.  Throughout  the  whole  of 
this  speech,  though  two  occasions  occur  which  lead  him  to 
mention  his  enemies,  all  angry  ami  revengeful  feelings  are 
absorbed  by  the  softer  emotions  of  the  parent  anit  the  son:'* 
and  even  the  appearance  of  harshness  with  which  at  the  close 
of  this  scene  he  cuts  short  the  importunity  of  Tccmessa,  is 
a  sign  of  anything  rather  than  coldness  and  insensibility. 
Again,  when  the  fatal  sword  is  already  fixed  in  the  gniund, 
his  Inst  thoughts  are  turned  to  Salamis,  to  the  grief  of  his 
father  and  mother,    which    alone  he  bewails,  to  the   beloved 


*'*  An  imtjite  ludicrously  diagui»cd  iii  Frutcklui's  timiiKlstioni  "  Mftjr  the  breath  of 
life  me&ntinie  nourUh  ihy  tender  f^ame,"  m  if  EurTMcn  could  grow  up  to  muihood 

udIru  it  did. 

"  Kven  the  lines  {ihS)  vrav  A'  I^y  -Wfi^  Tavfo,  itl  o'  fl-rwc  -wartpb^  A«If<t«  kv  ky^^ovs, 
uIm  J£  »1'>w  T/xi^iijv,  on  which  ihe  Sdioliasl  rctnuks,  aVri  tou  h*i  o*  Jxiit^qvui  tiIi- 
•wa-riftn,  do  not  »reiii  lo  fmpty  wiy  definite  proapcct  of  revenge,  w  much  jw  a  hope  lh«l 
the  \f\arf  of  F.iirT>uim  inl|{ht  in  lime  ftilence  «nd  ronfuiiiul  hit  fathsr't  enemies. 


514 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophotlea. 


flceiics  aud  friends  (if  liis  yotitli :  even  the  parting  look  which 
hp  casts  on  the  Trojan  plains,  and  their  familiar  springs  ami 
Btreatus,  is  one  of  teiiderneAfi:  his  last  words  an  atfVctionate 
farewell. 

All   this  is  so  evident,  that    it  niust   have  been   at   least 
partially  felt  by  every  intelligent  reatler,   and   it  would  pro- 
[  bably  have  produced  a  greater  effect   than  it  seems  to  have 
done  on   the  judgements   that  have  been  formed  on  the  play, 
if  a  strong  im{>ression  of  an  opposite  kind  had  not  been  made 
I  on  most  minds  by  the  intermetliate  scene,  in  which,  after  the 
[Chorus  has  deplored   the  inflexible  stubbomnens   with  which 
Vjax  has  rejected  the  intreaties  of  Tccniefisa,  the  hero  in  a 
rangle  speech   announces  the  intention   with   which    he  finally 
quits  the  camp   to  seek   a  solitary  s|X)t  on  the  seashore.     Till 
within  a  few  yeara  all  critics,  from  the  Greek  scholiast  down- 
.  wards,  had  agreed  in  their  general  view  of  tlie  object  of  this 
hepccch,  which  they   have  supposed  to  be  an  artifice  by  which 
Mjax  dissembles  his  real  feelings  and  purpose.      They    have 
Ibecn    equally  tinaninious  on   another  point,    of  no  great   im- 
■  portanee   in    itself,  hut  interesting   from    its    hearing   on    the 
former:  they  imagine  that,  after  the  scene  with  the  child,  both 
Ajax  and  Tecmessa  retire  from  the  stage,  and  that  the  former 
comes  out  of  the  lent  after  the  Chorus  has  endetl  its  mournful 
strain.     And  now,  according  to  the  connnon  opinion,  in  order 
to  pacify  his  friends,  and  to  secure  himself  from  interruption 
in  the  deed   he  is  about  to  perform,  he  affects   to  have  been 
softened  by  the  prayers  of  Tecmessa,  and  to  have  consented 
to  spare  his  life :    in  signifying  this  change  of  mind,   he  at 
the  same  time  declares  his  i-eso]ntion  of  proceeding  to  purify 
himself  from  the  stain  of  his  frantic  slaughter,  and  to  make 
his    peace,    if    [Hissible,    with    the   offended    goddess,   aod  of 
paying  due   homage  in   future  to  the  Atridtt,    whom  he  ac- 
knowledges  as    his    legitimate    superiors.     He  then   dismisses 
Tecmessa  into  the  tent,  and  leaves  the  Chorus  to   give  vent 
to  its  delight  in  a  strain  of  rapturous  joy.     This  speech,   \i 
considered  as  ironical,   tnidoubtedlv  indicates  not   merely  im- 
movable firmness  of  resolution,  but  a  spirit  of  haughty  de- 
fiance,   a   bitter    disdain    of  all    restraints,  human   or  divine, 
which  would  prove  that,   if  any  change  had   taken  place   in 


Jn  fheJnmy  of  Saphocfea. 


tSiL 


his  sentiments,  it  was  only  one  by  which  hi&  pride  had  been 
raised,  and  his  ferocity  hanlened:  and  such  appears  to  have 
been  the  inference  which  has  been  almost  universally  drawn 
froiu  it. 

But  a  few  years  back  this  portion  of  the  play  was  placed 
in  an  entirely  new  light  by  Professor  VVelcker,  who  lias  made 
the  Ajax  the  subject  of  an  elaborate  essay  in  the  Rkeint^chea 
Museum^  IB29;  which,  after  all  that  has  been  written  on  this 
branch  of  literature,  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  most 
valuable  contributions  tiiat  have  yet  been  made  to  the  study 
of  the  Greek  drama.  Beside  a  most  learned  discussion  oo 
the  sources  from  which  Sophocles  drew  his  materials,  and 
on  the  peculiar  motives  which  guided  him  in  the  selection 
of  them,  it  cojitains  tlie  author's  reason^i  for  rejecting  the 
current  opinion  on  the  two  points  just  raention«I.  He  con- 
ceives in  the  first  place,  that  Ajax  remains  on  the  stage  during 
the  song  of  the  Chorus  which  follows  his  dialogue  with  Tuo- 
messa,  inwardly  absorbed  in  thought,  and  together  with  her 
and  the  child  presenting  to  the  spectators  what  they  would 
perhaps  have  looked  upon  as  a  group  of  sculpture,  and  we 
should  call  a  living  picture.  The  strongest  argument  for  this 
supposition  is,  that  no  sufHcieut  motive  appears  or  can  be 
assigned,  which  should  have  induced  Ajax  to  re-enter  the  tent, 
after  he  had  bidden  Tecmcs&a  retire  into  it  and  withdraw 
her  grief  from  the  public  eye.  As  little  should  we  be  able 
to  understand  why,  if  she  had  once  obeyed  his  injunction, 
she  should  have  come  out  again  with  him.  On  the  other 
hand,  dumb  shew,  exhibiting  the  principal  person  of  a  piece 
in  an  expressive  attitude,  was  a  contrivance  by  no  means 
unusual  in  the  Greek  theatre,  as  is  proved  not  only  by  the 
celebrated  examples  of  the  Niobe  and  the  Achilles  of  .'fischylus, 
but  also  by  the  practice  of  Sopliocles  himself,  who  for  instance 
allows  Antigone  to  remain  silent  on  the  stage  during  a  choral 
song  of  considerable   length";    and  in   this  very   play    ke«ps 


"  W«]cier  therefore  conceivw  Ui»t  Cwon's  oG9nin»nd  ( Antig.  IW)  u  obeyed  forth- 
with :  and  certainly  thi*  opinion  »eema  to  be  cronfinnwl  by  v .  "'-y  to  £'  uS?  •.o,3«  -raV , 
o'vK  d-waWdl^ti  ftifiov.  But  perhaps  it  i*  not  necwftary  ta  imtglnc  the  slMer's  prrseni, 
uid  both  the  lut  words  of  the  Chorus  DO^.  and  tho««  of  AntiKone  at  the  be/tinning  of 
her  neat  speech,  rather  indicate  that  she  bad  juat  made  her  appearance,  lie  alio  re/era 
to  the  silence  of  PyUdci  in  ihc  Elcclra,  and  to  that  of  Tecmcsaa  when  deceived  by  ihe 
apefch  of  Ajax. 

Vol.  II.  No.  (>.  3U 


51C 


Oh  the.   Irofttf  of  Sophocien. 


I 


Tecmessa  and  the  chiH  for  a  long  time  in  a  studied  posture 
near  the  corpse.  The  difficulty  that  may  seem  to  arise  frum  _ 
the  C'horus  in  our  play*  which  according  to  this  hypothesial 
speaks  of  Ajax  in  his  presence  without  addressing  him,  dis- 
appears if  we  imagine  that  the  silent  group  occupied  the  hack 
ground,  which  would  in  itself  be  the  most  natural  position 
for  it ;  nor  is  the  language  of  the  song  itself  such  as  called 
for  any  answer.  But  the  more  important  question  is,  whether 
the  subsequent  speech  of  Ajax  it*  designed  to  conceal  his  real 
Bentiineiit^  and  tu  deceive  the  hearers.  Welcker  contends  thai 
though  couched  in  language  which  is  hero  and  there  amhiguous, 
it  merely  expresses  the  speaker^s  feelings,  and  that  it  is  only 
through  the  eagemeM  with  which  men  usually  interpret  all 
they  see  and  hear  according  to  their  witches,  that  Tecmessa 
And  the  Chorus  misunderstand  its  meaning.  He  thinka  that 
the  artifice  which  the  common  construction  attributes  to  Ajax 
is  inconsistent,  not  only  with  the  generc^ity  but  with  the 
streDgth  of  his  cliaracter,  and  that  none  of  the  purposes 
which  have  been  supposed  to  explain  it  are  sufficient  to  ac- 
count fur  it;  and  that  it  involves  consequences  which  destroy 
all  the  unity  of  the  play,  and  render  the  poet's  design  un-fl 
intelligible.  " 

In  order  to  understand  the  points  on  which  this  question 
hinges,  we  must  observe  that  both  Tecmessa  and  the  Chorus  J 
arc  actually  deceived  by  the  speech  of  Ajax,  and  consequently 
that  the  ambiguity  which  deceives  them  was  undoubtedly 
designed  on  the  part  of  the  poet.  And  this  fact  not  only 
renders  the  occasion  of  the  prevailing  opiaiuu  independently 
of  its  truth  very  conceivable,  but  raises  a  strong  prejudice 
in  its  favour,  and  throws  the  burden  of  the  argument  on 
those  who  reject  it.  It  does  not,  however,  necessarily  follow 
that  the  deception  produced  by  the  speech  was  intentional 
on  the  part  of  the  speaker;  and  to  determine  whether  the 
poet  meant  it  to  be  so  considered,  we  must  examine  tlie  speech 
both  by  itself,  and  in  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  play. 
The  first  inquiry  is,  whether  it  contains  any  expressions  which 
Ajax  could  not  have  used  without  intending  to  mislead  hia 
friends.  But  it  would  not  be  a  fair  way  of  tryiug  this  ques- 
tion, to  consider  whether  he  speaks  exactly  an  he  might  have 
done  if  he  had  not  been  conscious  of  their  presence.      It  might 


I 


On  the  /ivntf  of  Sophocles. 


m 


be  admitted  that  he  purposely  avoids  tlie  use  of  direct  and 
unequivocal  terms  in  announcing  what  he  knew  to  be  dreadful 
and  afflicting  to  them,  without  granting  that  he  wished  to 
disguise  his  intentions  from  them.  Natural  and  common  hu- 
manity would  have  forbidden  him  to  shock  the  feelings  of 
persons  to  whom  his  life  was  no  dear,  by  a  distinct  declaration 
of  his  final  resolution.  On  the  other  hand,  to  ask  why  then 
he  tuu<rhes  on  the  painful  subject  at  all,  would  be  unfairly 
to  call  in  question  the  tmdoubted  conventional  privileges  of 
the  dramatic  poet.  Ajax  must  give  vent  to  the  thoughts  and 
feelings  under  which  he  is  about  to  act:  but  he  may  be 
expected  to  do  so  with  a  considerate  reserve  dictated  by  his 
aituatiou.  If  after  making  this  necessary  allowance  we  pro- 
ceed to  examine  his  language,  we  aliall  perhaps  find  that 
though  it  is  certainly  odaptcd  to  raise  hopes  that  he  has 
abandoned  his  design  of  self-destruction,  it  implies  nothing 
but  what  he  may  be  believed  really  to  have  thought  and  felt. 
The  beginning  indeed  sjseaks  of  a  marveUuus  change  which 
has  taken  place  within  him:  his  iron  soul  has  been  unmanned 
by  pity  for  Tecmessa.  This  change  would  seem  to  have  been 
wrought  during  the  interval  occupied  by  the  song  of  the 
Cliorus  ;  for  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  sc^-ne  he  had  re- 
sisted all  the  attempts  to  soften  him  with  an  obstinacy  which 
appeared  to  be  only  exasperated  by  her  importunity.  Hence 
most  critics  have  imagined  that  Tecmcssa  is  supposed  to  have 
renewed  her  intreaties  within  the  tent,  and  that  Ajax,  instead 
of  silencing  them  as  before  with  a  peremptory  refusal,  now 
affects  t"  be  overcome  by  them.  This  however  is  a  mere 
conjecture,  and  we  are  equally  at  liberty  to  suppose  that 
during  the  pause  in  which  he  has  remained  silently  wrapt 
in  thought,  the  workings  of  conjugal  affection  liave  made 
themselves  felt  so  as  to  cost  him  a  painful  struggle,  though 
without  being  able  to  move  him  from  his  purpose.  It  does 
not  however  seem  necessary  to  consider  this  in  the  light  of 
an  abrupt  and  almost  prH^ternatural  inward  revolution.  It 
would  be  very  consistent  with  human  nature,  of  which  So* 
phocles  everywhere  shews  a  fine  and  intimate  knowledge,  to 
interpret  those  replies  to  the  supplications  of  Tecmcssa,  which 
sound  so  rough  and  hard,  as  signs  of  awakened  sympathy, 
which  Ajax  had  endeavoured  to  suppress  by  assuming  a  harsher 


the  Irony  ^Sophocies. 

[tone,  but  which,  after  it  ceased  to  he  enforced  from  without, 
[had  g;uned  new  strength  in  his  heart.  Wclcker  regards*  the 
change  as  more  gudden.  though  perfectly  natural,  as  tlie  ex- ' 
I  citcraent  of  a  feeling  which  had  hitherto  slept  in  the  heroes 
breast,  and  had  at  length  been  roused  by  the  shock  witli  which 
tile  gotU  hod  humbled  his  pride,  and  had  finally  been  calletl 
into  distinct  action  by  the  contagion  of  female  tenderness. 
He  compares  it  to  the  effect  produced  on  the  temper  of  Achilles 
by  the  loss  of  his  friend.  The  prayers  of  Tecmessa  are  not 
indeed  the  cause,  but  the  occasion  :  yet  they  decide  the  mood 
in  which  Ajait  henceforth  contemplates  his  relations  to  the  gods 
and  to  mankind,  and  in  which  he  ends  his  life.  He  considers 
his  blood  as  a  libation  with  which  he  is  about  to  ajipease  the 
wrath  of  the  offended  goddess,  and  to  atone  for  the  violence 
he  had  meditated  against  legitimate  authority.  The  hearers 
naturally  mistake  the  nature  of  this  purifying  bath.  Thei 
luotle  in  which  he  mentions  his  purpose  of  burying  his  sword 
may  ]>erh&ps  seem  more  difficult  to  reconcile  with  this  view, 
and  Welcker's  remark,  that  the  alledged  motive,  the  calamitous  , 
ofieration  of  an  enemyV  gifts,  was  a  current  opinion  which 
Ajax  again  expresses  in  his  last  speech,  seems  hardly  sufficient 
to  remove  the  appearance  which  this  passage  at  first  sight  i 
presents  of  a  dclil>erate  intention  to  mislead.  Ajax  designing 
to  fall  upon  his  sword,  speaks  only  of  hiding  it  as  an  illfated 
weaimn  in  the  ground.  Could  he,  it  may  be  asketl,  but  for 
the  Bake  of  deception,  have  raised  an  image  so  different  from 
the  act  which  he  was  meditating.  The  sword  might  indeed 
be  said  to  be  concealed,  when  the  hilt  was  fixed  in  the  ground 
and  the  blade  lodged  in  hiK  body  :  hut  since  this  hiding  pro- 
duced the  most  fatal  consequences  instead  of  averting  them, 
would  he  have  selected  this  mode  of  describing  his  intended 
deed,  if  he  had  not  foreseen  that  it  would  l)e  misunderstood? 
This  seems  scarcely  possible  if  it  had  been  only  the  fatality 
of  the  weapon  that  he  had  in  his  thoughts.  But  perhaps 
it  may  be  more  easily  conceived,  if  we  suppose  him  to  have 
reflected  on  it  rather  as  having  been  once  the  object  of  his 
pride,  a  tribute  of  respect  to  his  valour  from  a  respected  enemy, 
and  afterward  the  instrument  of  his  shame.  He  was  now 
about  to  expiate  his  pride,  and  to  wi[je  ofl'  his  shame:  in 
both   respects    he   might   be  truly   said   to  hide  his  sword   in 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


519 


the  most  emphatic  senae,  when  he  sheathed  it  in  his  uwn  b<xly. 
The  last  objection  that  the  speech  suggests  to  the  view  pro- 
posed by  Welckcr,  arises  from  the  professions  which  Ajax 
appears  to  make  of  his  intention  in  future  to  yield  to  the 
gods  and  pay  due  reverence  to  the  Atridre,  and  in  general 
to  regulate  his  conduct  by  maxims  of  moderation  and  dis- 
cretion.  These  professions  would  certainly  be  mere  dissimu- 
lation if  they  referred  to  anything  but  the  approaching  ter- 
mination of  his  career,  whereas  they  seem  to  imply  a  prospect 
of  its  continuance.  Yet,  if  Ajax  contemplated  his  death  as 
a  satisfaction  both  to  divine  and  human  justice,  his  manner 
of  describing  the  lesson  he  had  learnt  and  which  he  would 
thenceforth  practise,  is  not  unnatural,  but  strongly  emphatic. 
On  the  other  Imnd  the  objections  which  the  spcicch  raises  to 
the  common  opinion  are  very  difficult  to  remove.  If  the  aim 
of  Ajax  is  to  deceive  his  friends,  admitting  the  contrivance  to 
Ik?  worthy  of  his  character,  and  consistent  with  his  prenous 
conduct,  he  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  more  in  earnest  in 
one  part  of  the  speech  than  another.  It  would  imply  in  him- 
self and  would  create  in  the  reader  an  intolerable  confusion  of 
ideas  and  feelings,  to  imagine  that  he  really  pitietl  the  condition 
of  Tecmessa,  and  nevertheless  only  expressed  his  sentimeutsfur 
the  pur]X*He  of  deceiving  her.  And  yet  who  that  has  witnessed 
the  scene  of  the  parting  from  his  child,  can  believe  that  he  felt 
no  pity  for  the  mother,  If  so,  since  he  couples  her  widowhoo«1 
with  il8  orphanhood,  we  should  be  forced  to  infer  that  he  was 
equally  indifferent  to  both.  On  the  same  principle  if  the  pas- 
sages relating  to  the  nnger  of  the  goddess  and  the  submission 
due  to  the  gods  are  to  be  taken  as  ironical,  we  must  conaidei 
Ajax  in  the  light  of  a  Capaneus  or  a  Me/entius,  who  not  only 
disregards  hut  insults  the  gods.  That  he  shimld  be  sincere  in 
his  professions  of  reverence  for  them,  and  yet  use  his  piety  for 
a  cloak,  would  be  a  contradiction  not  to  be  endured.  But  in 
no  part  of  the  play  's  Ajax  represented  as  an  audacious  blas- 
phemer and  conteunier  of  the  gods,  though  in  the  pride  of  his 
heart  he  sometimes  has  forgotten  what  was  due  to  them.  His 
last  speech,  where  his  sentiments  continue  the  same  and  are 
exprest  without  disguise,  breathes  not  only  piety  but  confidence 
in  the  divine  favour,  grounded  on  the  consciousness  not  indeed 
of  perfect  innocence,   but  of  great   wrongs  suffered,    and   of 


520 


On  the  Iitmy  of  SophocteS' 


ample  reparation  made  for  a  slight  transgression.  So  though  it 
may  seem  natural  that  he  should  s]>eak  with  hitter  disdain  of 
the  Atridffi,  against  whom  we  find  him  retaining  his  resentment 
to  the  last,  it  would  be  incredible  that  he  should  have  made  his 
profession  of  respect  for  their  station  if  it  was  insincere,  an  oc- 
casion of  introducing  such  a  series  of  general  reticxions  as  that 
which  followsj  in  which  he  appears  to  be  reconciling  himself 
to  the  thought  of  obedience,  by  considering  it  as  a  universal 
law  of  nature.  All  this  evidently  proceeds  from  the  depth  of 
his  heart,  and  so  viewed  is  beautiful  and  touching:  whereas  if 
it  be  taken  as  a  trick,  tu  make  bis  assumeil  change  of  mood 
more  credible,  nothing  can  eaaily  be  conceived  more  repulsive 
in  itself,  and  less  appropriate  to  the  character  of  Ajax.  Finally 
his  parting  directions  tu  Tccmessa  and  the  Chorus  are  so  little 
like  those  of  a  person  who  was  anxious  to  conceal  his  design, 
that  as  Welcker  truly  observes,  one  might  rather  be  disposed 
to  complain  of  the  improbability  that  their  meaning  should 
have  been  nnstaken :  if  it  were  not  that  a  prejudice  once  caught 
is  known  to  be  capable  of  blinding  us  to  the  clearest  intima- 
tions of  the   truth. 

On  the  whole  then  we  adopt  with  entire  conviction  Welcker's 
general  view  of  this  speech,  which  indeed  harmonizes  so  well 
with  that  which  has  here  been  taken  of  one  great  feature  in  the 
poetical  character  of  Sophocles,  that  wc  have  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  weigh  the  arguments  on  each  side  as  cautiously  as  pos- 
sible. Still  if  any  one  should  find  it  impossible  to  believe  that 
Ajax  could  be  unconscious  of  the  effect  that  liis  words  were 
producing,  we  should  not  be  unwilling  to  admit  that  he  perceived 
the  ambiguity  of  those  expressions  which  bear  a  double  meaning, 
so  long  as  we  arc  not  called  upon  to  give  up  the  opinion  that 
he  is  throughout  and  thoroughly  in  earnest.  Before  we  quit 
the  subject  wc  will  notice  one  or  two  passages,  which  either 
appears  to  contradict  this  conclusion,  or  have  been  so  inter- 
preted. The  curse  which  Ajax,  when  on  the  point  of  death, 
pronouuces  against  theAtridie  ajid  the  whole  army,  may  at  first 
sight  seem  to  be  inconsistent  with  those  sentiments  of  reverence 
for  their  authority  which  he  expresses  in  the  former  scene,  and 
thus  to  prove  that  they  were  not  genuine.  It  seems  however 
no  more  difficult  to  conceive  that  Ajax,  while  he  acknowledged 
the  debt  which  he  owed  to  justice  for  a  breach  of  social  order. 


the  itcfty  nfSoph  orles. 


591 


might  still  consider  himself  as  an  injured  man,  and  invoke  the 
Furies  to  avenge  his  wrongs,  than  that  he  might  believe  hidi- 
self  an  object  of  divine  favour,  notwithstanding  the  offences 
against  tlie  gods  which  he  was  about  to  expiate.  The  curse 
itself,  after  the  example  of  (Kdipus,  will  not  l»e  thought  an 
indication  of  peculiar  ferocity-  Only  that  it  should  have  been 
extended  to  the  whole  army,  may  seem  an  excess  of  vindictive 
cruelty,  and  in  fact  this  has  proved  a  stumbling  block  to  seve- 
ral critics.  But  it  must  lie  remembered,  in  the  first  place,  tliat 
the  array  had  sanctioned  and  share<t  the  iniquity  of  its  chiefs, 
in  withholding  from  Ajax  the  honours  he  had  earned  in  their 
service;  and  next,  that  the  ruin  of  the  king  involve.s  the  cala- 
mity of  the  people.  So  Achilles  can  not  distinguish  between 
Agamemnon  and  the  Greeks".  With  the  exception  of  this 
curse,  which  however  answers  the  purpose  of  recalling  the 
hero's  wrongs  to  our  recollection,  and  thus  strengthening  our 
sympathy  with  his  sufferings,  the  whole  s[K>ech  is  highly 
pathetic,  so  that  any  expression  of  arrogant  impiety  would 
jar  most  offensively  with  its  general  tenor.  And  hence  it  is  of 
some  importance  to  obsen'e,  that  there  is  nothing  at  all  sa- 
vouring of  such  a  character  in  the  address  Co  Jupiter,  where 
Ajax  speaks  of  his  petition  as  requesting  no  great  boon  (mr^ 
tTOfiat  c€  ^  ov  fiaKpov  yefta^  Xa^ctv).  Mr  Campbell,  in  his 
Lectures  on  Poetry,  has  entirely  mistaken  the  force  of  this 
expression,  where  he  says  that  fre  recognize  the  self  depends 
ence  and  stubbornness  of  his  pride-,  when  he  tells  the  chief  of 
the  gods  that  he  had  but  a  slight  boon  to  implore  of  him.     Not 


■*  Tbetc  cooudentitmi  tetm  kufficieat  to  icmove  the  difBculljr  which  Ucnnaoii  finds 
tu  thfi  coninion  conatniciion  of  tlie  wokU  (844)  ytintrUt.  ^t|  tfiriltolf*  -rttirviiftw  a-r/m- 
Tfli,  which,  if  y€^«a9t  u  referred  to  «^paTai>,  appear  to  him  to  breathe  the  wioiit 
Mrockius  inhumftjiity.  The  constriction  he  propoMM,  referring  yeCtaVt  to  the  Atrid», 
fa  an  hmnh  that  cnir  Is  t(\»ii  to  dupoue  with  it,  and  yet  U  nf  very  little  \ue  la  aafleiiinx 
the  alleU^tcd  atrocity  uf  the  iuiprecatioa.  Another  difEculiy  which  hat  perplexed  the 
conimentatOTi  in  ihU  pwtage  is  less  connected  with  oiir  preaent  nubjci'L  The  cuT*e 
rrtanifentlf  contains  a  ji'^iction  which  was  meant  to  confortn  to  the  event :  yet  the 
wordk  iTfids  Twv  ^iXfo-rmv  itcyatrtan  iXoia-ra,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  hlMof7  withont 
great  violence,  aa  by  dialinxuiidilng  between  ^tXitrrmv  and  Jxy«*><aii,  in  the  manner  pro- 
poaed  by  Mua^rave.  Hermann's  interpretation  !■  intolermbly  atrairwd  and  perplexed. 
There  U  no  necestiit)'  for  lupposing  that  Ajax  has  LHyue*  in  view  at  all.  From  him  he 
HmI  received  a  provocation  indeed,  but  no  peculiar  trronir,  which  he  ahould  rjill  upon 
the  Fuiea  to  avenKc*  Welcker  thioka  that  the  eaaieat  aolution  of  the  dlfliculty  i»  to 
Buppoae  that  a  line  ha*  dropi  out  after  ain-oaipaytlt ,  cootftinlng  in  tUui^  to  Clytem- 
liMtra'ii  erimp  and  puniahment. 


5SS 


Chi  the  irony  of  Sophocles. 


to  mention  hnw  uuseasonabk*  such  pritlu  would  have  been,  wheii 
I  Ajax  was  aetuallv  supplicating  a  favour  to  which,  though  little 
[for  Jupiter  to  grant,  he  himself  attached  great  importance,  and 
•how  inconsistent  with  the  reverence  exprest  for  Jupiter'^s  ma- 
[jesty  in  the  address:  **  Thou  first,  O  Jove" — it  is  clear  that 
I  the  words  in  question  contain  notliing  more  than  a  touching 
allusion  to  the  extremity  in  which  he  was  now  placed,  when  the 
only  thing  left  for  him  to  demre  of  Jupiter^  was  that  his  bodv 
might  not  he  deprived  of  the  rites  of  burial,  Mr  Campbell 
could  scarcely  have  overlooked  this,  if  he  had  not  been  pre- 
^IKWsessed  with  the  common  opinion  about  the  character  of  Ajax, 
as  exhibited  in  the  previous  s)>eech,  which  he  too  considers  as  a 
feiniy  and  endeavours  to  explain,  but  without  perceiving  the 
main  di^icultics  which  the  suppouitiuu  involves.  He  sees 
nothing  in  the  tragedy  but  an  exhibition  of  *^''thc  despair  and 
suicide  of  a  proud  soldier,  who  has  lived  but  for  martial  honor, 
and  cannot  survive  the  loss  of  it."  Though  wc  think  this  con- 
ception of  the  subject  so  inadequate  as  to  miss  what  is  most 
essential  in  the  ))oet\  design,  we  must  do  Mr  C.  the  justice  to 
observe,  that  he  has  shewn  a  lively  sense  of  some  of  the  beau- 
ties of  the  play,  which  is  the  more  meritorious,  as  we  learn  from 
him  that  the  English  translators  have  been  insensible  to  them. 
He  complains  with  great  reason  that  Sophocles  bhould  have 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  persons  so  little  capable  of  relishing 
him,  as  not  even  to  be  struck  with  the  sublimity  of  the  opening 
scene  of  the  Ajax  :  though,  since  such  perceptions  are  the  gift 
of  nature,  we  do  not  understand  why  they  are  called  illiberal 
critics.  Wc  collect  however  one  rather  melancholy  inference 
from  this  fact,  and  from  Mr  Canipbeirs  lectures:  that  the 
study  of  the  poet's  works  with  a  view  to  the  pleasures  of  the 
imagination,  has  not  kept  pace  with  the  diligence  bestowed  on 
them    as  objects  of  philological  criticism. 

Most  critics  have  felt  a  great  difficulty  in  explaining  the 
reasons  which  induced  Sophocles  to  protract  the  action  after 
the  death  of  Ajax,  with  which,  according  to  modern  notions 
the  interest  expires.  What  has  been  said  on  this  subject  ha* 
for  the  most  part  been  proposed  in  the  language  of  apology, 
and  in  a  tone  which  now  and  tlien  raises  a  suspicion  that  the 
advocate  is  not  thonjughly  convinced  of  the  goodness  of  his 
cause.      Thus  Hermann  faintly  defends  the.t^Oj^cLudipg  ^cengs 


On  the  Irony  of  S^hoclea. 


523 


with  arguments  which  iu  substance  condemn  them :  and  though 
Mr  Campbell  assures  us  that  "the  interest  does  not  at  all  flag 
in  the  remainder  of  the  tragedy,"  we  want  some  better  expla- 
nation of  the  grounds  of  this  opinion,  ttian  is  to  be  found  in 
the  remark  :  **  that  the  Greeks  attached  an  awfully  religious 
importance  to  the  rites  of  burial,"  which  would  apply  equally 
to  many  other  tragedies  which  do  not  end  in  like  manner:  or 
in  the  assertion :  that  "  we  feel  the  hero's  virtues  to  be  told 
with  the  deepest  efl'ect  wlien  his  widow  and  child  kneel  as  sup- 
pliants to  heaven  and  human  mercy,  lieside  his  corps;  when 
his  spirited,  brother  defies  the  threats  of  the  Atridas  to  deny  him 
sepulchral  honors:  and  when  Ulysses  with  politic  magnanimity 
interposes  to  prevent  the  mean  insult  being  offered  to  his  fallen 
enemy."  The  celebration  of  a  hero's  virtues  after  his  death  is 
surely  not  a  legitimate  object  of  tragedy:  nor  ia  it  true  that 
those  of  Ajax  are  more  effectually  told  by  his  widow  and  child 
when  they  kneel  beside  his  corps,  than  when  they  cling  to  him 
during  his  life:  or  by  Teucer  and  Ulysses  when  they  interpose 
in  his  behalf,  than  they  had  previously  been  in  the  first  scene 
by  the  admission  of  an  encinvi  and  afterward  by  the  attachment 
and  admiration  exprcst  by  his  friends.  Still  less  can  the  con- 
clusion of  the  piece  be  defended  on  the  ground  that  "■  it  leaves 
our  syn]{>athics  calmed  and  elevated  by  the  triuuiph  of  Ulysses 
in  assuaging  the  vindiciiveness  of  Aganiemoon,  and  attaching 
the  gratitude  of  Teucer."  Our  sympathies  with  Ajax  have 
already  been  calmed  and  elevated  by  the  sorenity  and  majesty 
of  his  departure:  with  Ulysses  we  have  none  sufficiently  pow- 
erful lo  keep  up  our  interest  during,  the  following  scenes :  if 
we  had,  this  would  imply  a  want  of  unity,  which  would  be  as 
great  a  defect  as  that  which  has  been  made  the  subject  of  com- 
plaint. In  order  to  justify  the  poet  by  shewing  the  connexion 
between  these  scenes  and  the  preceding  part  of  the  play,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  take  into  account  a  circumstance  which 
Welcker,  though  not  the  first  to  notice  it,  has  placed  in  a  clearer 
light  than  any  former  writer :  that  Ajax  was  an  object,  not 
merely  of  human  interest,  but  of  religious  veneration,  with  the 
audience  for  whom  Sophocles  wrote.  The  Athenians  were 
proud  of  him  as  one  of  their  heroes,  who,  since  Clisthenes, 
gave  his  name  to  a  trilie  which  was  distinguished  by  some  |)ecu- 
Vor..  II.  No.  (T.  3X 


5d4 


On  the  Iruny  of  SophoclfM. 


liar  privileges."     They  claimed  his  sons  as  their  adopted  cilt- 
xens,  the  ancestors  of  their  noblest  families  and  some  of  their 
most  illustrious  men.     But  the  hero's  title  to  those  reli^ous 
I  honours  which  were  paid  to  him  in  the  time  of  Sophocles,  coni- 
Lincnccd  only  from  hi.s^  interment:  and   hence  no  subject  could 
I  be  mure  interesting  to  the  Athenians  in  general,   and  more  por- 
ticnlarlv  to  the  tribe  which  bore  his  name,''  than  the  contest  on 
the  issue  of  which  his  heroic  sanctity  dependetl.      Welcker  very 
happily  remarks  that  Menelaus  and  his  brother  fdl  the  part  of 
,  an  Adnocahis  Diaholl  at  a  process  of  canonization.     On  the 
[other   hand   the   injury   which  Ajax   had    planned   against  the 
[army  and  its  chiefs,  was  one  which  according  to  primitive  usage, 
in  ordinary  cases,  would  have  justified  (he  extreme  of  hostility 
on  their  part,  and  consequently  the  privation  of  funeral  rites. 
This  was  not  in  the  eyes  of  the  Greeks  a  mean  insult,  but  a 
natural  and  legitimate  mode  of  vengeance;  though  the  violence 
I  and  arrogance  with  which  it  is  prosecutcil  by  the  Spartan  king 
\  JB  exhibited  in  an  odious  light,  undoubtedly  for  the  sake  of  sug- 
gesting to  the  Athenian  audience  a  |>oliticaI  application  to  their 
rivals,  which  was  especially  happy   in  a  piece  deilicated  to  the 
I  honour  of  an   Attic  hero,  and    which   they    would   not  fail   lo 
seize  and  enjoy-      But  this  strenuous  opposition  serves  to  exalt 
the  character  of  Ajax,  and  to  enhance  the  glory  of  his  triumph. 
\  And  thus  the  contrast  between  tlie  appearance  and  the  reality  is 
Incompleted,  as  in   the  seccmd  (Kdipu.f.      At  the  beginning  we 
eaw  the  hero  in  the  depth  of  degradation,  au  object  of  mockery 
and  of  pity  :  this  was  tlie  effect  of  his  inordinate  self  esteem,  of 
his  overweening  confidence  in  his  own  strength.     But  out  of  his 

"  Set  thf  honouis  of  tlie  ,Eimtid«  in  Plut.  Sjfmp.  I.  If.  2.  3.  They  wtn  peculurly 
connectcil  with  the  fflnry  of  ^fu-athoii.  Marailinii  itself  belonged  to  them:  they  dccu> 
pfed  th«  ri^hi  wing  in  the  b&tt!c  :  they  iiumliercil  th«  polcmjirch  Callinuchut  •moog 
their  c)li»tw:  Milliule«  v^a  dcHcenduit  of  Aj«x  (MarccUin.  V'ii.  Thtic):  tb«  deeteaj 
for  the  expedition  vm  made  under  their  presidency.  At  Plalsa  loo  they  acquitted  theui- 
selves  so  nobly^  thai  they  were  appointed  to  conduct  the  sacrifice  to  the  SphrHffittdea  <in 
Cltharoo.  Their  chotusseK  were  never  to  take  the  last  place,  riularch  thlnka  thAt 
this  waa  not  M  much  tht^  reward  of  merit,  as  a  propitiation  of  the-  hem,  who  could  not  ] 
brook  defeat.  Uoe  may  cooipore  llie  me  made  of  tbia  topic  )iy  the  rhciarician  wboa* 
Ainerml  oration  in  printed  among  the  works  of  Dcmottheiies  :  uCk  iXdvGatft^  AlatTtBa^, 
5ti  twc  dfiiiTTfliou  a-rt(iif6*lK  Alat  lifiitoTav  iaur^  r/yijiruTo -rot-  fiinv. 

"  To  which  WeLcker  with  great  probability  refers  the  aUuaioti  in  the  line  (801) 
K\<i»ai  t'  'A0iiwai  «(ii  -no  niii^Tpot^toti  y*vof;.    If  the  tnbc  fttmisticd  the  chorua,  the  , 
leeal  application  would  br  still  more  pointed. 


On  the  Irotty  nf  Sopkocles. 


525 


huiuiliatiotif  his  aiiguiiili,  and  ilcspuir,  is&ucK  u  higlier  degree  of 
linpp)nL:!i&  and  renown  than  he  had  ever  iiuped  to  attain.  He 
closes  his  career  at  peace  with  the  gods :  his  inconiparablc  merit 
is  acknowledged  by  the  rival  whose  success  had  wounded  his 
pride:  he  leaves  a.  name  behind  him  which  shad  be  remembered 
and  revered  to  the  latest  generations. 

We  have  already  observed  that  the  length  of  our  remarks 
would  not  l»e  regulated  by  the  value  of  the  pieces  to  be  examined. 
The  Antigone  and  the  P/ii/uctet&ft  though  perhaps  neither  of 
them  is  inferior  in  beauty  to  the  Ajax,  will  detain  us  a  much 
shorter  time. 

In  the  Antigone  the  irony  on  which  the  interest  depends, 
is  of  a  kind  totally  different  from  that  which  has  been  illustrated 
by  the  preceding  examples.  It  belongs  to  that  head  which  we 
have  endeavoured  to  describe  as  accompanying  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  human  and  divine,  of  that  which  decides  not 
merely  the  quarrels  of  individuals,  but  the  contests  of  parties 
and  of  principles,  so  for  as  they  are  clothed  in  flesh  and  blood, 
and  wield  the  weapons  of  earthly  warfare.  The  subject  of  the 
tragedy  is  a  struggle  between  Creon  and  Antigone,  not  however 
as  private  persons  maintaining  their  selHsh  interests,  but  as 
each  asserting  a  cause  which  its  advocate  holds  to  be  just  and 
sa<.'red.  Each  partially  succeeds  in  the  sCniggle,  but  perifihes 
through  the  success  itself:  while  their  destruction  preserves  the 
sanctity  of  the  principles  for  which  they  contend.  In  order  to 
perceive  this,  we  must  guard  ourselves  against  being  carried 
away  by  the  impression  which  the  beauty  of  the  heroineV  cha- 
racter naturally  makes  upon  our  feelings,  but  which  tends  to 
divert  us  from  tlie  right  view  of  Creou's  character  and  conduct: 
a  partiality*  to  which  modern  readers  are  nut  the  less  liable,  on 
account  of  the  diiUculty  they  find  in  entering  into  the  train  of 
religious  feeling  from  wlaich  tlie  contest  derives  its  chief  im- 
portance. In  our  adiTiiration  for  j^ntigone  we  ntay  l>e  very  apt 
to  mistake  the  poet's  irony,  and  to  adopt  ihc  sentiments  which 
he  puts  into  her  mouth,  as  his  own  view  of  the  question,  and 
the  parties,  while  he  is  holding  the  balance  perfectly  even.  But 
to  consider  the  case  impartially,  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  in 
the  first  place,  that  Creon  is  a  legitimate  ruler,  and  next,  that 
he  acts  in  the  exercise  of  his  legitimate  authority.  He  had 
received  the  supreme  power  by  the  right   of  succession,  and 


596 


On  the  Ifony  of  Sophocles. 


ith  the  full  consent  of  his  subjects,  uhom  he  had  preseri 
[■from  their  foreign  invaders.'"  Ilicnion  does  not  mean  to  dis- 
]  pute  his  soverainty,  l>ut  only  to  signify  tfae  conditions  under 
1  which  it  ought  to  be  exercisei!,  when  in  reply  to  Creon's  qucs- 
Vtion,  whether  any  but  himself  is  governor  of  the  realm,  he  says, 
that  it  ia  no  city  which  belong  to  one  man  (737).  Creon's 
deeree  is  the  law  of  the  land.  Ismcne,  remonstrating  with 
Antigone  on  her  resolution,  declares  herself  incapable  of  acting 
in  opposition  to  the  will  of  her  fellowcitizens'*'.  And  Antigone 
herself  in  her  concluding  appeal  admits  that  she  has  so  acted 
(y07).  Nor  was  the  decree  a  wanton  or  tyrannical  exertion  of 
Dwer.  Crcoo  himself  professes  to  consider  it  as  indispensable 
the  wellbeing  of  the  state,  which  is  the  sole  object  of  his 
care  (188 — 192),  as  a  just  punishment  for  the  parricidal  enter- 
prize  of  Polynites.  And  this  is  not  merely  CTeon''a  language^ 
whom  however  we  have  no  reason  to  suspect  of  insincerity  :  it 
is  also  evidently  the  judgement  of  the  Chorus,  whose  first  song, 
which  presents  so  lively  a  picture  of  the  imminent  danger  from 
which  Thebes  has  just  been  rescued,  seems  to  justify  the  ven- 
geance taken  on  its  author.  The  reflexions  amtained  in  the 
next  song,  on  the  craft  and  ingenuity  of  man,  are  pointed  at 
the  secret  violation  of  CreonV  ordinance,  as  an  instance  in  which 
the  skill  of  contrivance  hns  not  been  coupled  willi  due  respect 
for  the  laws  and  oliligations  of  society  :  and  the  Chorua  depre- 
cates all  communion  with  persons  capable  of  such  criminal 
daring*^".  Antigone  herself  does  not  vindicate  her  action  on 
the  ground  that  Creon  has  overstept  t]ie  bounds  of  his  pre- 
rogative, but  only  claims  an  extraonlinary  exemption  from  iu 
operation,  on  account  of  her  connexion  with  the  deceased.  She 
even  declares,  that  she  would  rot  have  undertaken  such  a  re^ 
Bistanee  li^  the  will  of  the  state,  for  the  sake  either  of  children 
or  husband  (907):  it  was  only  the  peculiar  relation  in  whicbl 
she  stood  to  Polynices,  that  justified,  and  demanded  it.  This 
too  is  the  only  ground  which   Ha-muu  alledges  for  the  general 


futvapx^""'  *^*'  '^>  **  ^*  him»elf  nayt,  (174)  ytvws  laT   dyx*"^''**  ''''**'  M*A<rruir. 

"  7tt-  Ti  ^i  Bia  ■woKiTtov  ipap^  e<pvi/  d^)f](it^)t. 

**  troipliv  Ti  Tt)  ftfixt'oeif  Tix*"**  tnrip  e\xii)'  ^mv,  vovi  flip  ttavAlt,  SXka^  iw 
'iatXAp  3fnr<f  rdn^vx  TraptiptaP  xBovtit,  daiott  t  iuopMieii  ittcav,  u\^i-wa\i%'  airo\dt, 
vTtp  TO  Ml  >iuX6¥  futffjm,  nKfiav  j^aViw*  t'A'^  iftol  •wtiprtmo^  yitioira,  ^jJt'  lavu 
Apovviv.  Of  rat'  ipati. 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophoclet. 


527 


synipathy  exprest  by  the  people  with  Aniigone :  and  in  relying 
on  this,  he  tacitly  admits  that  the  same  action  would  have  de- 
served punishment  in  any  other  person.  His  general  nariiings 
against  excessive  pertinacity  are  intended  to  induce  hU  father 
to  give  up  his  private  judgement  to  the  popular  opinion.  Creon 
on  the  other  hand  is  bent  on  vindicating  and  maintaining  the 
majesty  of  the  throne  and  of  the  laws.  No  state  can  subsist, 
if  that  which  has  been  enacted  by  the  magistrate,  on  mature 
deliberation,  is  to  be  set  aside  Iwcausc  it  thwarts  a  woman's 
wishes,  ((>7'^ — 678)  or  because  it  is  condemned  by  the  multi- 
tude (73*).  Obedience  on  the  part  of  the  governed,  tirmness 
on  the  part  of  the  ruler,  are  essential  to  the  good  of  the  com- 
monwealth. These  sentiments  nppear  to  be  adopted  by  the 
Chorus.  Notwithstanding  its  good  will  toward  Antigone,  and 
its  pity  for  her  fate,  it  considers  her  as  having  incurred  the 
penalty  that  ha<l  been  inflicted  on  her  by  an  act.  which,  though 
sutHciently  fair  and  specious  to  attract  the  praises  of  men  and 
to  render  her  death  glorious,  was  still  a  violation  of  duty,  and 
brought  her  into  a  fatal  conflict  with  eternal  .lusticc ;  a 
headstrong  defiance  of  the  soverain  power,  sure  to  end  in  her 
destruction".  It  has  appeared  to  several  learned  men,  not 
without  u  considerable  show  of  probability,  that  the  numerous 
pasiutges  iu  this  play  which  inculcate  the  necessity  of  order,  and 
submission  to  established  authority,  may  have  had  great  weight 
in  disjwsing  the  x\thentans  to  reward  the  poet  with  the  dignity 
of  strateguR,  whicli  we  know  did  not  necessarily  involve  any 
military  duties,  though  Sophocles  happened  to  l>e  so  employed, 
but  which  would  still  have  been  a  singular  recompense  for 
mere  poetical  merit". 

Nevertheless  the  right  is  not  wholly  on  the  side  of  C'reon. 
So  far  indeed  as  Polynices  is  concerned,  lie  has  onl)*  shewn  a 
just  severity  sanctioned  by  public  opinion,  and  perhaps  required 
by  the  interest  of  the  state.      Early  however  in  the  action  wc 


*'  The  ('bonu  Tint  fttiempai  to  raasole  AoUgone  by  KtDindtnK  her  of  htr  fame 

(817)-  avKovij  nXiiifii  Mil  iirairou  i-j^omt'  'Kv  ^6i'  dirifiXV  ^••'Cw  v*tivmv;  rihI  tbeo 
■nswen  her  compUlau  by  lugKeadng  ber  fauU  (flSS) :  ■wf>o§aa  i-r'  iir\arov  8paaowv 
v^f)\6»  U  SUu^  pd^fiow  irpoaiiitan,  «  -rticiMiv,  voXv*  and  a^sfal  (873)  vifinr  fUtf 
tifvtfittd  rtt'  KpdTov  A'  ^m  tf/arot  pisXti,  vapafiaTif  oitiafijf  irJXn,  ai  i'  aifrty¥ttT«t 

**  Mr  Campbell  very  needleatly  and  gmundlnKly  cooJcctutM  that  8o|>hoeleii  po»- 
■lawd  omtidcrable  military  eKpcricncc  «heii  he  was  elected  to  ihc  offioo. 


«S8 


On  the  irony  of  Sofikocles, 


have  nn  intimution  that  in  his  zeal  for  the  commonwealth,   and 
for  the  maintenance  of  his  royal  authority,  he  has  uverlooked 
the  claims  of  some  other  parties  whose  interests  were  tifiected 
[by  his  conduct.     The  rights  and  dnties  of  kindred,  though  they 
[ jnight  not  be  permitted  to  alter  the  course  prescribed  by  policy 
[and  justice,  were  still  entitled  to  respect.     If  Antigone  had  for- 
jfeited  her  life   to  the   rigour  of    the  law,  equity  would  have 
interposed*    at    lea»t    to    mitigate    the    punishment    of    an    act 
prompted  by  such  laudable  motives.     The  mode  in  which  the 
penalty  originally  denounced  against  her  ufTeiise  was  transmuted, 
so  as  to  subject  her  to  a  death   of  lingering  torture,  added 
mockery  to  cruelty.      But  the  rites  of  burial  concerned  not  only 
the  deceased,  and  his  surviving  relatives;   they  might  also  be 
considered  as  a  tribute  due  to  the  awful  Power  who  ruled  in  the 
nether  world ;    as  such  they  could  not  commonly  be  withheld 
without  impiety.      Hence  Antigone,  in  her  first  altercation  witJi 
Creon,  urges  that  her  deed,  though  forbidden  by  human  laws, 
was  required  by  those  of  Hades,  and  might  be  deemed  holy  in 
the  realms  below*''.     Hicnion  touches  on  the  same  topic,  when 
he  charges  his  father  with  trampling  on  the  honours  due  to  tlie 
gods,  and  suys  that  he  pleads  not  on  behalf  of  Antigone  alone, 
but  of  the  infernal  deities  (7t5-7t9)*   Creon,  in  pronouncing  his 
final  sentence  on  Antigone,    notices  this  plea,  but  only  to  treat 
it  with  contempt.     "  Let  her  implore  the  aid  of  Hades,  the  only 
power  whom  she  reveres:  he  will  |>erhaps  deliver  her  from  her 
toiub ;  or  at  least  she  will  learn  by  experience,  that  her  rever- 
ence has  been  ill  bestowed/"     We  must  not  however  construe 
these  passages  into  a  proof  that  Creon,  in  bis  decree,  had  com- 
mitted an  act  of  flagrant    impiety,  nnd    that  his  contest  with 
Antigone  was  in  effect  a  struggle  between  policv  and  religion. 
It  is  clear  that  his  prohibition  was  consistent  with  the  customarv 
law,  and  with  the  religious  opinions  of  the  heroic  ages,  as  they 
are    represented  not  only  by  Homer,  but   in  other  works   of 
Sophocles  himself.      The  determination  of  Achilles  to  prevent 
Hector^s  burial,  and  his  treatment  of  the  corps,  are  related  as 
extraordinary  proofs  of  his  affection  for  Patroclus,  but  still  as 
a  legitimate  exercise  of  tlie  rights  of  war.     In  the  deliberation 
of  the  gods  on  the  subject,  the  only  motive  assigned  for  the 

^  ftlV.    Arr.  "0(1.10%  S  yAiJirt    Tw^t  v6)io\*t  Todrwt  -roArt.     ILft.  ' KW    oi-x   o 


On  the  Irotttf  of  Sophoclee. 


5*i& 


interference  of  Jupiter,  is  Hector's  nu-rit  und  piety.  Juno, 
Neptune,  and  Minerva,  arc  so  far  from  tinding  any  thing  im- 
pious in  the  conduct  of  Achilles,  that  ihey  oppose  the  interven- 
tion of  the  powers  friendly  to  Troy  on  behalf  of  the  deceased. 
So  the  dispute  about  the  burial  in  the  Jja.T  turns  entirely  on 
the  merits  of  the  hero,  without  any  reference  to  the  claims  of 
the  infernal  gods.  Add  as  little  does  Electra  seem  to  know  any 
thingof  them,  when  she  desires  Orestes,  after  killinf^  vEgisthus, 
to  expose  him  to  such  interrers  as  befit  a  wretch  like  him, 
that  is,  as  the  Scholiast  explains  It,  to  the  birds  and  hounds*'. 
Hence  in  the  Antigone  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  any  of  the 
speakers  assume  as  a  general  proposition,  that  to  refu^  burial 
to  a  corps  is  absolutely  and  in  all  cases  an  impious  violation  of 
divine  laws,  though  they  contend  that  the  honours  paid  to  the 
dead  are  grateful,  and  therefore  in  general  due  to  the  infernal 
gods.  Hitherto  therefore  Creon  can  only  be  charged  with 
having  pursued  a  laudable  aim  somewhat  intemperately  ami 
inconsiderately,  without  sufficient  indulgence  for  the  natural 
feelings  of  mankind,  or  siiflicicnt  respect  for  the  Powers  to 
whom  Polynices  now  properly  belonged.  He  has  one  principle 
of  action,  which  he  knows  to  be  right;  but  he  does  not  reflect 
that  there  may  be  others  of  equal  value,  which  ought  not  to 
be  sacrificed  to  it.  It  is  not  however  before  the  arrival  of 
Tiresias  that  the  eff'ectsof  this  inflexible  and  indiscriminate  oon- 
sistcncy  become  manifest.  The  seer  declares  that  the  gods 
have  made  known  by  the  clearest  signs  that  Creon's  obstinacy 
excites  their  displeasure.  He  has  reversed  the  order  of  nature, 
lias  entombed  the  living,  and  disinterred  the  dead.  But  still 
all  may  be  well :  nothing  is  yet  irretrievably  lost ;  if  lie  will 
otdy  acknowledge  that  he  has  gone  too  far,  be  may  retrace  his 
steps.  The  gods  below  claim  Polynices,  the  gods  above  Anti- 
gone: it  is  not  yet  too  late  to  restore  them.  But  Creon, 
engrossed  by  his  single  object,  rejects  the  prophet's  counsel, 
defies  his  threats,  and  declares  that  no  respect  even  for  the 
holiest  of  things,  shall  induce  him  to  swerve  from  his  resolution. 
Far  from  regarding  the  pollution  of  the  altars,  he  cares  not 
though  it  should  reach  the  throne  of  Jove  himself:  and  glosses 
over  his  profaneness  with  the  sophistical  plea,  that  he  knows. 


**  1487.  Kvamiv  wpJ6n  Ta^timv.  mv  rifH' ttndt  ivrl  Tvyxdifwiv, 


fiSO  On  the  Irmiy  uf  Sophoclea. 

no  mnn  hns  power  to  pollute  the  gods.  The  calamity  whicfT 
now  befalls  him,  ia  an  appropriate  chastisement.  Already  the 
I  -event  had  proved  his  wisdom  to  be  folly.  The  measures  he  hod 
taken  for  the  good  of  tlie  state  had  involved  it  in  distress  and 
danger.  His  boasted  firmness  now  gives  way,  and  on  a  sud- 
den he  is  ready  to  abandon  his  purpose,  to  revoke  his  decrees. 
But  they  are  executed,  in  spite  of  himself,  and  in  a  manner 
which  for  ever  destroys  his  own  happiness.  Antigone  dies, 
the  victim  whom  he  had  vowed  to  law  and  justice:  but  as 
in  her  he  had  sacrificed  the  domestic  affections  to  his  state- 
policy,  lier  death  deprives  him  of  the  last  hope  of  his  family, 
and  makes  his  hearth  desolate.  She,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  had  been  drawn  into  an  involuntary  conflict  with  social 
order  by  the  simple  impulse  of  discharging  a  private  duty^ 
pays  indeed  the  price  which,  she  had  foreseen,  her  under- 
taking would  cost :  but  she  succeeds  in  her  design,  and  tri- 
umphs over  the  power  of  Creon,  who  himself  becomes  the 
minister  of  her  wishes. 

The  character  and  situation  of  the  parties  in  this  play 
Tendered  it  almost  necessary  that  the  contest  should  he  termi- 
nated hy  a  tragical  catastrophe,  even  if  the  poet  had  not  been 
governefl  hv  the  tradition  on  which  his  argument  was  founded: 
thdugli  to  the  lost  room  is  left  open  for  a  reconciliation  winch 
would  have  prevented  the  calamity.  In  the  PhUorf-efes  the 
struggle  is  brought  to  a  hnppv  issue,  after  all  liopes  of  such 
a  result  appeared  to  have  l>een  extinguished  :  and  this  is  not 
merely  conformable  to  tradition,  but  required  by  the  nature 
of  the  subject.  Our  present  object  is  only  to  exhibit  the  works 
of  Sophocles  in  a  particular  point  of  view,  and  we  therefore 
abstain  from  entering  into  discussions,  which,  though  very 
important  for  the  full  understanding  of  them,  arc  foreign  to 
our  immediate  purpose.  Wc  cannot  however  help  observing, 
that  the  Philoctetcs  ia  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  danger 
of  trusting  to  a  first  impression  in  funning  a  judgement  on 
the  design  of  an  ancient  author:  and  that  it  ought  at  the 
some  time  to  chock  the  rashness  of  those  who  think  that  in 
such  subjects  all  is  to  be  discovered  at  the  first  glance,  and 
to  raise  the  confidence  of  those  who  may  Ix?  apt  to  desjiair 
that  study  and  iuvestigutiou  can  ever  ast;ertain  anything  in 
them,  tliai  has  once  been  controverted.     The  Philoctetes  en- 


(hi  fhe  frnttff  of  Sophoc/es. 


531 


gagi'cl  llu'  aLrciUtcHi  of  scjinc  of  the  most  fminent  Gi-rinaii  criticft, 
a  Winkeltnaiin,  a  Lessing,  a  Herricr,  for  a  long  time  in   an 
extraordinary  degree.      Vet   there  are  prohably  few  points  on 
which  intelligent  judges  of  such  matters  are  more  unanimnns, 
than  that  these  celebrated  men  were  all  mistaken  on  the  ques- 
tion which  they   agitated,   and   that  it  ia  only  in  later  times 
that  it  has  hcen  placed  on  a  right  footing  and  clearly  under- 
stood.    The  bodily  sufferings  of  Philoctetes  are  exhibited  by 
the  i>oct  for   no   other  purpose  than   to  afford  n  measure  of 
the  indignation  with  which  he  is  inflpired  by  his  wrongs,  and 
of  t!ie  energy  of  his  will.      It  is  no  ordinarA'  pain   that  tor- 
ments  liim,    but   of  a   kind    similar   to    that    which    extorted 
groans  and  tears  from   Hercules  himself.      Vet  in  his  eager- 
ness to  escape  from   the  scene  of  his  long  wretchedness,   he 
makes  an  almost  superhuman  effort  to  master  it,  and  conceal 
it    from    the  observation   of  the  bystanders.      The   difficulty 
of  the  exertion  proves  the  strength  of  the  motive :    yet   the 
motive,   strong   as  it  is,  is  unable   to  bear  him   up  against 
the   violence   of   the   pain.     He  loses   his  self-command,    and 
gives   vent   to   his   agony  in    loud   and    piteous   cxclamation». 
But  all  he  had  hoped  for  from  Neoptolemus,  when  he  strove 
to  stifle  his  scnsation.s,  was  not  to  be  cured  of  his  sore,   hut 
to  l)e  transported    to   a  place  where    his  sufferings  might  be 
mitigated  by  the  presence  and   aid  of  compassionate  friends. 
When    lie  discovers  the   fraud    that    had   been    played    upon 
him,    he  ia  at  the  same    time  in^Hted   to  return    to    Troy,   by 
the  prospect  of  recovering  health   and  strength,  and  of  using 
them    in  the   most   glorious  of   lields.      But   long   as    he   had 
sigheil  for  deliverance  from  his  miserable  solitude,  intolerable 
aa  are  the  torments  he  endures,  ambitious  as  he  is  of  martial 
renown,  and  impatient  of  wasting  the  arrows  of  Hercules  on 
l)irds  and  beasts,  there  is  a  feeling  stronger  than  any  of  these 
which  impels  him  to  reject   the  proffered  good   with  di.sdain 
and  even  loathing,   and   to  prefer  pining  to  his  life's  end  in 
lonely,    helpless,  continimlly   aggravated   wretchedness.      This 
is  the  feeling  of  the  atrocious  wn»ng  that  has  been  inflicted 
on  liini:  a  feeling  which  acquires  new  force  with  every  fresh 
throb  of  pain,  with  every  hour  of  melancholy  musing,  and 
renders  the  thought  of  being  reconciled  to  those  who  have  so 
deeply  injiire<l  him,  and  of  lending  hi.<!  aid  to  promote  their 
Vol..  II.  No.  «.  3V 


083 


Of  I  the  Irony  uf  Sttpttoclen. 


interest  and  txalt  their  glory,  one  from  which  he  recoils  with 
abhorrence.     At    the    time    when   his   siUmtion    appears   most 
utterly  desperate,  when  he  sees  himself  on  the  point  of  being 
abandoned  to  an  extremity  of  distress,  compared  with  winch 
his  past   sufferings   were  light,    while   he   is    tracing   the  sad 
features  of  the  dreary   i>rospect   that  lies  immediately  beforof 
him,  and  owns  himself  overcome  by  its  horrors,  the  suggestion^ 
of  the  Chorus,   tliat    his  resolution  is  shaken,   and  their  ex- 
hortation that  he  would  comply  with  their  wishes,  rekindles 
all  the  fury  of  his  indignation,  which  breaks  forth  in  a  strain^ 
of   vehemence,    such    as    had    never   before  escaped   hini'^:    uf 
passage  only   inferior  in  sublimity    to  the  similar  one  in   the 
Prometheus  (I04>.'i),  inasmuch  as  Prometheus  is  perfectly  calni,_ 
Philoctetes  transported  by  passion.  ■ 

The  resentment  of  Philoctetes  is  so  just  and  natural,  and 
bis  character  so  noble  and  amiable,  he  is  so  open  and  unsuspect- 
ing after  all  his  experience  of  human  treachery,  so  warm  and 
kindly  in  the  midst  of  all  his  sternness  and  impatience,  that  it 
would  seem  as  if  Sophocles  had  intended  that  he  should  l>e  the 
object  of  our  unqualiiied  sympathy.  Yet  it  is  not  so:  the  puet 
himself  preserves  au  ironical  composure,  and  while  he  excites 
our  esteem  and  pity  for  the  suffering  hero,  guards  us  agaitist 
sharing  the  detestation  Philoctetes  feels  for  the  authors  of  his 
cidaniity.  The  character  of  T'lysses  is  contrasted  indeed  moftt 
forcibly  with  that  of  his  frank,  generous,  impetuous  enemy; 
but  the  contrast  is  not  one  between  light  and  darkness,  good 
and  evil,  between  all  that  we  love  and  admire  on  the  one  hand, 
aud  what  we  must  liate  and  loath  on  the  other.  The  character 
of  Ulysses,  though  not  amiable,  is  far  from  being  odious  or 
despicable.  He  is  one  of  those  {lersons  whom  we  cannot  help 
viewing  with  respect,  even  when  we  disapprove  of  their  princi- 
ples and  conduct.  He  is  a  sober,  experienced,  politic  states- 
man, who  keeps  the  public  good  steadily  in  view,  aiul  devotes 
himself  entirely  to  the  pursuit  of  it.  Throughout  the  whole 
of  his  proceedings,  with  regard  to  Philoctetes,  he  maintains 
this  dignity,  and  expresses  his  consciousness  of  it.  He  is  always 
ready  to  avow  and  justify  the  grounds  on  which  he  acts-  Frcmi 
the  beginning  he  has  been  impelled  by  no  Iwise  or  selfish  motive) 


On  ike  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


533 


hut  on  the  eoutrary,  has  exj»ose(i  himself  to  personal  Hanger  for 
the  public  service.  He  had  never  home  any  illwil)  to  Phjloc- 
tetea:  but  when  hw  presence  vas  detrimental  to  the  army,  lie 
advised  his  removal ;  now  that  it  is  discovere<l  to  be  necessory 
for  the  success  of  the  expedition,  he  exerts  hia  utmost  endca. 
vours  to  bring  him  Iwclc  to  Troy-  He  knows  the  character  of 
Philmrtetea  too  well,  lo  suppose  that  his  resentment  will  ever 
give  way  to  persuasion  (lOS),  and  the  arrows  of  Hercules  are  a 
saf^pjard  against  open  force.  He  therefore  finds  himself  com- 
pelled to  resort  to  artifice,  which  on  this  occasion  appears  the 
more  defensible,  because  it  is  employed  for  the  benefit  not  only 
of  the  Grecian  army,  but  of  Philoctetes  himself,  who,  once  de- 
prived of  his  weapons,  will  probably  consent  to  listen  to  reason. 
Neoptolcmus,  though  his  natural  feelings  are  shocked  by  the 
proposal  of  ITIysaes,  is  unable  to  re.«fi8t  the  force  of  his  argu- 
ments,  and  suffers  himself  to  be  persuaded  that,  by  the  step  he 
is  about  to  take,  he  shall  earn  the  reputation  not  only  of  a  wise, 
but  a  good  man"*.  It  is  true  that  he  retains  some  misgivings, 
which,  when  strengthened  by  pity  for  Philoctetes,  ripen  into  a 
complete  change  of  purpose.  But  Ulysses  never  repents  of  his 
counsels,  but  considers  the  young  man^s  abandonment  of  the 
enterprise  as  a  culpable  weakness,  a  breach  of  his  duty  to  the 
common  cause.  In  his  own  judgement  this  cause  hallows  the 
undertaking,  and  renders  the  fraud  he  has  practised  pious  and 
laudable*^-  And  hence  when  assailed  by  Philoctetes  with  the 
most  virulent  invectives,  he  preserves  liis  temper,  and  replies  to 
them  in  a  tone  of  conscious  rectitude.  "  He  could  easily  refute 
them,  if  thi^  were  a  season  fur  argument;  but  he  will  confine 
himself  to  one  plea :  where  the  public  weal  demands  such 
expedients,  he  scruples  not  to  use  them;  with  this  exception, 
he  may  hoa.st  that  no  one  surpasses  him  in  justice  and  piety." 
Sucli  language  accords  so  well  with  the  spirit  of  the  Greek  in- 
stitutions, according  to  which  the  individual  lived  only  in  and 
for  the  state,  that  from  the  lips  of  Ulysses  it  can  raise  no  doubt 


••  117.  Oi.  »v  TQvra  y  Sfi^ai,  Utt  iiiptt  trnpiift^ra.  N«.  Uotto;  ftaimr  yap,  ttinc 
ni>  (fpniiVl"  TO  ipav.     Oi.  Zo^h^t  t'  if  mirrii  ndyaOAt  «(«Xii  JE^a. 

'"  Hence  with  tiic  rocI  of  crmA  be  bivuke*  tbc  goddem  of  politlul  prudeocc,  hin 
pecuUv  pKironeiu:  (133)  'K^/inc  ^  ^  irf^ir«i'  AoKtot  tfyijoai-m  inif,  N/k'j  t'  'A9aiH% 


634 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles. 


We  »ee  that   he   has  adopted  his 


ciple 


>ut 


of  his  sincerity. 

deiiberalely»  and  acts  «pon  them  consis 

But  the  doctrine  thnt  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  though 
in  every  age  it  Iius  found  men  to  emhraee  it,  has  never  hevn 
universally  and  absolutely  admitted.  Ulysses  has  convinced 
himself  by  his  own  sophistry,  but  he  cannot  pervert  the  in- 
genuous nature  of  Ncoptolemus,  whose  unprejudiced  decision 
turns  the  scale  on  the  side  of  truth.  The  intervention  of  Ncop- 
tolemus 16  not  more  requisite  for  the  complication  of  the  action, 
than  for  the  purpose  of  placing  the  two  other  characters  in  the 
strongest  light.  He  cannot  answer  the  fallacies  of  Ulysses,  but 
he  more  effectually  refutes  them  by  his  actions.  The  will 
statesman  has  foreseen  and  provided  against  all  the  obstacle 
that  might  interfere  with  the  execution  of  his  plan — except 
one :  he  has  not  reckone<l  on  the  resistance  he  might  find  in 
the  love  of  truth,  natural  tn  uncorn]pte<l  minds,  and  which,  in 
his  young  companion,  has  never  been  stifled  by  the  practise  of 
deceit.  He  had  calculated  on  using  Neoptolemus  as  an  instru-jl 
tnent,  and  he  finds  him  a  man.  And  hence  the  unexpected" 
issue  of  the  struggle  renders  full  justice  to  all.  Philotletes  is 
brought  to  embrace  that  which  he  had  spumed  as  ignominy 
worse  than  death:  but  by  means,  wliich  render  it  (he  must 
glorious  event  of  his  life,  and  comptnsate  for  the  sufTcring* 
inflicted  on  him  by  the  anger  of  the  gods.  The  end  of  Ulysses 
is  attained,  but  not  until  nil  his  arts  have  been  bafHed,  and  he 
has  beeii  compelled  to  retire  from  the  contest,  defeated  and 
scorned.  Neoptolemus,  who  has  sacrificed  every  thing  to  truth 
and  honpur,  succeeds  in  every  object  of  his  ambition  to  the 
utmost  extent  of  his  desires.  The  machinery  by  which  all 
this  is  effected  is  indeed  an  arbiti"ary  symbol,  but  that  which 
it  represents  may  not  be  the  less  true. 

We  are  aware  how  o|)en  the  subjects  discusHed  in  the  fore- 
going pages  are  to  a  variety  of  views,  and  how  little  any  one  of 
these  can  be  expected  to  obtain  general  asseut-     Wc  can  even  _ 
anticipate  some  of  the  objections  that  may  be  made  to  the  onefl 
here  proposed.      According  to  the  opinion  of  a  gi-eat  nioileni 
critic,  it  will  perhaps  appear  to  want  the  most  decisive  test  of 
truth,  the  sanction  of  Aristotle.     And  undoubtedly  if  it  is  onceS 
admitted  that  no  design  or  train  of  thought  can  be  attributed 


1 


I 


On  the  Irony  of  SopHttcteS' 


€35 


to  the  Greek  trngic  poets  which  has  nut  bocn  notke<l  hy  An»- 
lotlc^f  this  little  cs^ay  must  be  content  to  nhare  the  fute  of  the 
greater  part  of  the  works  written  in  mtHlern  times  on  Greek 
tragedy,  and  to  pass  for  an  idle  dream.  We  would  however 
fain  hope  either  that  the  critic\s  sentence,  investing  Aristotle  a» 
it  does  with  a  degree  of  infallibility  and  otnni.science,  which,  in 
thifi  particular  ])rovince,  wc  should  be  least  of  all  dintposed  to 
concede  to  hiin,  may  bear  a  milder  constructiont  or  that  wc 
may  venture  to  appeal  from  it  to  a  higher  tribunal.  Another 
more  specific  objection  may  }iossibly  be,  that  the  idea  of  tragic 
irony  which  we  have  attempted  to  illustrate  hy  the  preceding 
examples,  is  u  modem  one,  and  that  instead  of  finding  it  in 
Sophocles,  we  have  forcetl  it  u|wn  him.  So  far  as  this  objt^tion 
relates  to  our  conception  of  the  (loet's  theology,  we  trust  that 
it  may  have  been  in  some  measure  counteracted  by  the  dis- 
tinction alwvc  drawn  between  the  religious  nentiinents  of  Sopho- 
cles, and  those  of  an  earlier  age.  This  distinction  seems  to 
liave  been  entirely  overlooked  by  a  German  author,  who  has 
written  an  essay  of  considerable  merit  on  the  Ajn.t\  and  who 
in  Hpeaking  of  the  attributes  of  Miner\'a,  ns  slie  appears  in 
that  play,  observes:  '*the  idea  that  the  higher  powers  can  only 
interjMwe  in  the  affairs  of  mankind  for  the  purpose  of  tnaking 
men   wiser  and  l>etter,  is  purely  modern"."     That  which  he 


*■  *■■  Hodic  pleruque  fkti  usui  in  QrKcornnt  tzagodU  necetuarius  videtur :  de  <)uo 
tgrnini  nihil  nb  Amtolcif  trftdiluin  ait,  Kpparet,  i|uiunvu  iu  plcriitjac  tragcrdiis  Orcco- 
niiTi  fnlo  ftutr  sini  panrs  tameti  icnlixom  illanim  fabuWum  non  cogiuYiiKc  dc  f»ta." 
lleTDiaiu).  I'nrf.  ul  TnicMnlu,  p,  7.  A  Uttk  furthrr  on  he  otnerve*:  "Qua  In  rr 
nutem  JIU  tragu-dlc  natumm  poaitun  esse  aiatucriiiL  optime  ex  AiliitDiele  cot^nnscl  jw)> 
te«t,  t{xxi  et  irUte  iia  proxiumtt  funit,  ct,  ut  tps«  (rnrcua,  (JrtKomm  moK  pliiloMiplulus 
wt."  And  50  ■ifniii  In  the  PrefKe  to  PhUortetes,  p.  11.  *' Trs^ri  fittvconm  eaun 
habclMoi  wiimu  infomiauin  noumem  tragirdije^  c|uw  «t  ab  AriilMde  in  libro  dc  arte 
poctica  prnpoftitA."  lUtl  they  then  all  the  Mine  noUoQ  of  it.  and  itus  there  no  differ- 
ence between  that  of  yEtchylus  and  those  of  Sophocles  and  of  Euripides  ?  And  if  thcf 
had,  wa«  it  lufficicnt,  In  order  to  comprehend  It,  to  be  a  Urevk  of  ncurl}-  tht:  sainc  o^, 
and  ft  philosopher?  How  many  eootradictory  theoriea  JiaTc  been  proposed  on  Goetbc'it 
poetry  by  contemporary  Ueniian  tnetaptiyRiriant^ !  Erci  llcmuuin  hinudfhaa  not  been 
univerully  uttderttooi)  in  his  own  daj.  Afany  pcnons  are  mill  pcnuaded  that  hii  trea. 
tiie  De  Afythntoffia  Ortrcariim  tintit/uitsima  is  mere  poetry,  while  the  author  himself 
protests  that  it  is  plain  pioae.  Bui,  joklnft  apart,  if  Lord  Bacon  had  nritten  a  treatiie 
nn  the  arc  Kif  poetry,  whu  would  now  think  hln  judgement  conclunivc  on  Shaliopcarc'a 
notion  of  tra^^etly,  or  oti  tlie  dni^fii  and  spirit  of  any  of  his  pUyg  ? 

"  Immemiann.  fW^or  den  riucndtii  Ajai-  dtt  Sophock'$,  p.  33i  ftl  p.  18.  he 
obfcrven:   "'(he  way  in  which  a  nuperior  Hcin|{  8le)w  in,  and  detcrmtnet  the  hero's 


fi86 


On  the  Irotiy  of  Sophoclen. 


conceives  to  he  repugnant  to  niodent  icIeaR  in  the  Uieology  of 
Sophocles  is,  that  Minerva  is  represented  as  inspiring  the 
phrenxy  of  Ajax:  an  agency  which  appears  to  him  inconsistent 
with  the  functions  of  the  goddess  of  wisdom.  According  to  the 
view  we  have  taken  of  the  play,  this  inconsistency  would  l>e 
merely  nominal.  But  even  according  to  his  own,  it  is  an  in- 
consistencv  which  need  nut  shock  a  modern  reader  more  than 
an  ancient  one.  We  are  familiar  with  a  magnificent  passage* 
in  which  it -is  said  of  **oiir  living  Dread,  who  dwells  In 
Silo,  his  bright  sanctuary,^  that,  when  about  to  punish  the 
Pliilistines,  **  Among  them  he  a  spirit  of  phrenzy  sent.  Who 
hurt  their  minds/'  Minerva  at  all  events  does  no  more,  and 
according  to  our  view  she  interposes  for  a  purely  benevolent, 
not  a  vindictive  purpose.  Whether  Sophocles  would  have 
scrupled  to  introduce  her  as  an  author  of  absolute  uncom- 
pensated evil,  is  a  question  with  which  we  are  not  here  con- 
cerned. But  the  idea  of  a  humbling  and  chastening  Power, 
who  extracts  moral  good  out  of  physical  enl,  does  not  seem 
too  refined  for  the  age  and  country  of  Sophocles,  however  dif- 
ficvdt  it  may  have  been  to  reconcile  with  the  popular  mythology. 

As  we  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  Sam^rtn  Agottistes^t 
we  are  tempted  to  remark  that  few  plays  afford  a  finer  specimen 
of  tragic  irony :  and  that  it  may  he  very  usefully  compared 
with  the  Jja^r  and  the  second  (Edipus.  We  leave  it  to  the 
reader  to  consider,  whether  the  poet,  who  was  so  deeply  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  Greek  tragedy,  was  only  imitating  the  out- 
ward form  of  the  ancient  drama,  or  designed  to  transfer  one  of 
its  most  essential  elements  to  his  work. 

On  the  other  hand  we  admit  that  it  is  a  most  difficult  and 
delicate  task,  to  determine  the  precise  degree  in  which  a  dra- 
matic poet  is  consi'iouH  of  certain  bearings  of  his  works,  aud  of 
the  ideas  which  they  suggest  to  the  reader,  and  hence  to  draw 
an  inference  as  to  his  design.  The  only  safe  method  of  pro- 
ceeding for  this  purpose,  so  as  to  avoid  the  dangor  of  going 
very  far  astray,  and  at  the  same  time  to  ensure  some  gain,  is  in 
each  particular  case  to  institute  an  accurate  examination  of  the 
whole  and  of  every  part,  such  aa  Welcker'a  of  the  Aj^^t  which . 


destiny,  u  ifrecnncilsble    with   mtr  pre»umpiiocu  (Ahnuttgcci)   about  tlw  lapcMM 
govenmeot  of  bttnuui  afltin." 


On  the  Irony  of  Sophocles.  537 

may  be  considered  as  a  model  of  such  investigations.  We  are 
conscious  how  far  this  essay  falls  short  of  such  a  standard :  and 
if  we  are  willing  to  hope  that  it  may  not  be  entirely  useless, 
it  is  only  so  far  as  it  may  serve  to  indicate  the  right  road, 
and  to  stimulate  the  curiosity  of  others  to  prosecute  it  in  new 
directions. 

C.  T. 


SCIILEIERMACHEU 

OK  rat. 

"worth  of  SOCRATES  AS  A  nilLOSOPHEU. 
(Frou  thk  Berlin  Transactions  of  1815.) 


That  very  different  and  even  entirely  opposite  judgeincuts 
should  be  formed  bv  different  men,  and  accordin*;  to  the  spirit 
of  different  times,  on  minds  of  a  leading  and  peculiar  onler, 
and  that  it  should  be  lato,  if  ever,  before  opinions  agree  as 
to    their    worth,    is    a    phenomenon    of   everyday   occurrence. 
But    it    is    less    natural,    indeed    it    seems    almotit    surprising, 
(hat  at  any  one  time  a  judgement  should  l)e  generally  received 
with  regard  to  any  such  mind,  which  is  in  glaring  contradic- 
tion   with  itself.     Yet,    if  I   am  not  mistaken,  it  is  actunlly 
the  case  with  Socrates,  that  the  portrait  usually  drawn  of  him, 
and   the  historical   importance    which    is    almost    unanimoiislv 
attributed  to  him,  arc  at  irreconcilable  variance.     With  Socrates 
most   writers  make   a  new  period    to  begin  in  the  history  of 
Greek    philosophy ;    which    at    all    events    manifestly    implies 
that    he  breathed    a   new  spirit   and  character   into    those   in- 
tellectual exertions  of  his  countrymen,  which  we  comprehend 
under  the  name  of  philosophy^    so  that  they  assume<l  a  new 
form   under  his  hands,   or  at  least    that  he  materially  widened 
their  range.     But  if  we  inquire  how  the  same  writers  describe 
Socrates  as  an  individual,  we  find  nothing  that  can  serve  as 
a  foundation  for  the  influence  they  assign   to  him.     We  are 
informed,  that  he  did  not  at  all  busy  himself  with  the  physical 
investigations  which  constitntod   a  miun  part  even  of  Greek 
jihilosophy,   but  rather  withheld  others  from   them,  and  that 
even    with    regard    to  moral    inquiries,    which    were    those    in 
which   he  engaged  the  deepest,  he  did  not  by  an}'   means  aim 
at  reducing  them  into  u  scientific  shape,  and  that  he  established 


IhFWom 


wcralet  aa  a  Philosopher.  539 


no  fixed  principle  for  this,  any  more  than  for  any  other  branch 
of  human  knowledge.  The  base  of  his  intellectual  constitution, 
•wc  are  told,  was  rather  religious  thaii  speculative,  his  exertions 
rather  those  of  a  good  citizen,  directed  to  the  improvement 
of  the  people,  and  especially  of  the  young,  than  those  of  a 
philosopher;  in  short,  he  is  represented  as  a  virtuoso  in  the 
exercise  of  sound  common  «ense,  and  of  that  strict  integrity 
and  mild  philanthropy,  with  which  it  is  always  associated 
in  an  uncorrupted  mind ;  all  this,  however,  tinged  with  a 
slight  air  of  enthusiasm.  These  arc  no  doubt  excellent  qua- 
lities; but  yet  they  arc  not  such  as  fit  a  man  to  play  a 
brilliant  part  in  history,  but  rather,  unless  where  peculiar 
circumstances  intervene,  to  lead  a  life  of  enviable  tranquillity, 
«»  that  it  would  he  necessary  to  ascribe  the  general  reputation 
of  Socrates,  and  the  alniost  unexampled  homage  which  has 
l>een  paid  to  him  by  so  many  generations,  less  to  himself  than 
to  such  peculiar  circumstances.  But  least  of  all  are  these  qua- 
lities which  could  have  produced  conspicuous  and  pt-rmanent 
effects  on  the  philoM>phical  exertions  of  a  people  already  far 
advanced  in  intellectual  culture.  And  this  is  confirnied,  when 
we  consider  what  sort  of  doctrines  and  opinions  are  attributed  to 
Socrates  in  conformity  with  this  view.  For  in  epite  of  the 
pains  taken  to  trick  them  out  with  a  sliew  of  ])1iilusopfay,  it  is 
in]]H)ssibl[f  after  all  to  give  them  any  scientific  sulidity  whatever  : 
the  farthest  point  we  come  to  is,  that  they  are  thoughts  well 
suited  to  warm  the  hearts  of  men  in  favour  of  goodness,  but 
such  as  a  healthy  understanding,  fully  awakened  to  reflexion, 
cannot  fail  to  light  upon  of  itself.  What  effect  then  can  they 
have  wrought  on  the  progress,  or  the  transformation  of  philo- 
sophy? If  wc  would  confine  ourselves  to  the  wellknown  state- 
ment, that  Socrates  called  philosophy  down  from  heaven  to 
earth,  that  is  to  houses  and  marketplaces,  in  other  words,  that 
he  proposed  social  life  as  the  object  of  research  in  the  i-ttoni 
of  nature:  still  the  influence  thus  ascribed  to  him  is  far  from 
salutary  in  itself,  for  philosophy  consists  not  in  a  partial  culti- 
vation either  of  morals  or  physics,  but  in  the  coexistence  and 
intercommunion  of  both,  and  there  is  moreover  no  historical 
evidence  that  he  really  exerted  it.  The  foundations  of  ethiral 
philosophy  had  been  laid  before  the  time  of  Socrates,  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Pythagoreans,  and  after  him  it  only  kept  its  place 
Vol.  II.  No.  6.  aZ 


540 


On  the  Worth  of  Socrates 


by  the  side  of  physics,  in  the   philosophical  systems  of  the 
Greeks,      tn  those  of  Plato,  of  Aristotle,   and  of  the  Stoics, 
that  is,  of  all  the  genuine  Socratic  schools  of  any  importance, 
we  again  meet  with  physical  investigations,  and  ethics   were 
exclusively  cultivated  only  by  those  followers  of  Socrates  who 
themselves  never  attained  to  any  eminence  in  philosophy.     And 
if  we  consider  the  general  tendency  of  the  abovenumed  schools, 
and  review  the  whole  range  of  their  tenets,  nothing  can   be 
jMiinted  out,  that  could  have  proceeded  from  a  Socrates,  endowed 
with  such  qualities  of  mind  and  character  as  the  one  described 
to  us,  unless  it  be  where  their  theories  have  been  reduced  to  a 
familiar  practical  application.      And  even  with  regard  to  the 
elder    Socratics,    we  find  more   satisfaction    in    tracing    their 
strictly  philosophical  speculations  to  any  other  source  rather 
than  to  this  Socrates  ;  not  only  may  Aristippus,  who  was  unlike 
his  master  in  his  spirit  as  well  as  his  doctrines,  be  more  easily 
derived  from  Protagoras,  with  whom  he  has  so  much  in  common, 
but  Euclid,  with  his  dialectic  bias,  from  the  Eleatics.     And  we 
find  ourselves  compelled  to  conclude,  that  the  stem  of  Socrates, 
as  he  is  at  present  represented  to  us,  can  have  produced  no  other 
shoot  than  the  Cynical  philosophvi  and  that,  not  the  cynism  of 
Antisthenes,  which  still  retains  many  features  which  wc  should 
rather  refer  to  his  earlier  master  Gorgias,  but  the  purer  form, 
which  exhibits  only  a  peculiar  mode  of  life,   not  a  doctrine, 
much  less  a  science :  that  of  Diogenes,  the  mad  Socrates^  as  he 
has  been  called,  though  in  truth  the  highest  epithet  due  to  him 
is  ihnt  of  Socrates  caricatured.     For  his  is  a  copy  in  which  we 
find  nothing  but  features  of  such  an  original:  its  approximation 
to  the  selfcontentedness  of  the  deity  in  the  retrenchment  of  arti- 
ficial wants,  its  rejection    of    mere  theoretical  knowledge,    its 
unassuming  course  of  going  about  in  the  service  of  the  god  to 
expose  the  follies  of  mankind.     But  how  foreign  all  this  is  to 
the  domain  of  philosophy,  and  how  little  can  be  there  effected 
with  such  means,  is  evident  enough. 

The  only  rational  course  then  that  seems  to  be  Left,  is  to 
give  up  one  or  other  of  these  contradictory  assumptions.  Either 
let  Socrates  still  stand  at  the  head  of  the  Athenian  philosophy, 
but  then  let  those  who  place  him  there  undertake  to  establish 
a  different  notion  of  him  from  that  which  has  been  long  preva-  , 
lent:  or  let  us  retain  the  conception  of  the  wise  and  amiaUe' 


OM  a  Philosopher. 


5» 


man,  who  was  made  not  for  the  achcx>I  but  wholly  for  the  world  : 
liut  then  let  him  be  transferred  from  the  history  of  philosophy 
to  that  of  the  general  progress  of  society  at  Athens,  if  he  can 
claim  any  place  there.  The  latter  of  these  expedients  is  not  very 
far  removed  from  that  which  has  been  adopted  by  Krug'  !  For 
as  in  his  system  Socrates  stands  at  the  end  of  the  one  period, 
and  not  at  the  beginning  of  the  next,  he  appears  not  as  the 
germ  of  a  new  age,  but  aa  a  product  and  aftergrowth  of  an 
earlier  one ;  he  sinks,  as  an  insulated  phenomenon,  into  the 
same  rank  with  the  sophists,  and  other  late  fruits  of  tlie  period, 
and  loses  a  great  part  of  his  philosophical  importance.  Only 
it  is  but  a  half  measure  that  this  author  adopts,  when  he  begins 
his  new  period  with  the  immediate  disciples  of  Socrates  a.s  such  ; 
for  at  its  head  he  places  the  genuine  Socratics,  as  they  are 
commonly  called,  and  above  all  Xenophon,  men  of  whom  he 
himself  says,  that  their  only  merit  was  that  of  having  propa- 
gated and  diflused  Socratic  doctrines,  while  the  doctrines  them- 
selves do  not  appear  to  him  worth  making  the  beginning  of  a 
new  period. — Ast  had  previously  arrived  at  the  same  result 
by  a  road  in  some  respects  opposite."  With  him  Plato  is  the 
fuH  bloom  of  that  which  he  terms  the  Athenian  form  of  phi- 
losophv>  and  as  no  plant  begins  with  its  bloom,  he  feels  himself 
constrained  to  place  Socrates  at  the  head  of  this  philosophy, 
but  yet  not  strictly  as  a  philosopher.  He  says,  that  the  opera- 
tion of  philosophy  in  Socrates  was  confined  to  the  exercise  of 
qualities  that  may  belong  to  any  virtuous  man,  that  is  tu  say, 
it  was  properly  no  philosophy  at  all ;  and  makes  the  essence  of 
bis  character  to  consist  in  enthusiasm  and  irony.  Now  he  feels 
that  he  cannot  place  a  man  endowed  with  no  other  qualities  than 
these  at  the  head  of  a  new  period,  and  therefore  he  ranges  the 
sophists  by  his  side,  not  indeed  without  some  inconsistency,  for 
he  himself  sees  in  them  the  perverse  tendency  which  was  to  be 
counteracted  by  the  spirit  of  the  new  age ;  but  yet  he  prefers 
this  to  recognizing  the  germ  of  a  new  gradation  in  Socrates 
alone,  whose  highest  philosophical  worth  he  makes  to  consist  in 
his  martyrdom,  which  however  cannot  by  any  means  be  deemed 
of  equal  moment  in  the  sphere  of  science,  as  in  that  of  reUgion 
or  politics.  Though  in  form  this  course  of  Ast's  is  opposite  to 
Krug's,  in  substance  it  is  the  same:  its  result  is  likewise  to 


)  Ocwh.  der  PhUon.  tlUr  Zell. 


•  Orundriii  etna  OMch.  der  Philot. 


542 


(hi  the  Worth  of  Sooratev 


begin  a  new  period  of  philosophy  with  Plato.  For  Ast  perceives 
nothing  new  or  peculiar  in  the  struggle  Socrates  made  »gain»t 
the  Sophists,  only  virtue  and  the  thirst  after  truth,  which  had 
uuduubtedly  animated  all  the  preceding  philosophers;  what  he 
represents  as  cliaracteristic  in  the  Athenian  philosophy,  is  the 
union  of  the  elements  which  had  been  previously  separate  and 
opposed  to  each  other;  and  since  he  does  not  in  fact  shew  the 
existence  of  this  union  in  Socrates  himself,  and  distinctly  recog- 
nizes their  separation  in  his  immediate  disciples,  Plato  is  after 
oil  the  point  at  which  according  to  him  that  union  begins. 

But  if  we  choose  really  to  consider  Plato  as  the  true 
beginner  of  a  new  period,  not  to  mention  that  he  is  far  too 
perfect  for  a  first  beginning,  we  fall  into  two  difficulties.  First 
as  to  his  relation  to  Aristotle.  In  all  that  is  most  peculiar 
to  Plato,  Aristotle  appears  as  directly  opposite  to  him  as 
possible;  but  the  main  division  of  philosophy,  notwithstand- 
ing the  wide  difference  between  their  modes  of  treating  it, 
he  has  in  common  with  Plato,  and  the  Stoics  with  both ; 
it  fits  as  closely,  and  sits  as  easilv  on  one  as  the  other,  so 
that  one  can  scarcely  help  believing  that  it  was  derived  from 
some  common  origin,  which  was  the  root  of  Plato"'s  philosophy 
as  well  as  theirs.  The  second  difficulty  is  to  conceive  what 
Plato's  relation  to  Socrates  could  really  have  been,  if  Socrates 
was  not  in  any  way  hia  master  in  philosoph}'.  If  we  should 
suppose  that  Plato's  character  was  formed  by  the  example 
of  Socrates,  and  that  reverence  for  his  master^s  virtue,  and 
love  of  truth,  was  the  tie  that  bound  him,  still  this  merely 
moral  relation  is  not  a  sufficient  solution  of  the  difficulty. 
The  mode  in  which  Plato  introduces  Socrates,  even  in  wurks 
which  contain  profound  philosophical  investigations,  must  be 
regarded  as  the  wildest  caprice,  and  would  necessarily  have 
appeared  merely  ridiculous  and  absurd  to  all  his  contem|M>- 
raries,  if  he  was  not  in  some  way  or  other  indebted  to  him 
for  his  philosophical  life.  Hence  we  are  forced  to  abide  by 
the  conclusion,  that  if  a  great  pause  is  to  be  made  in  Greek 
philosophy,  to  separate  the  scattered  tenets  of  the  earlier 
achools  from  the  later  systems,  this  must  be  made  with 
Socrates;  but  then  we  must  also  ascribe  to  him  some  element 
of  a  more  strictly  philosophical  kind  than  most  writers  do, 
though  as  a  mere  beginning  it  needs  not   to  have  been  carried 


at  a  Philosopher. 


£43 


very  far  toward  maturity.  Such  a  pause  as  this,  however,, 
we  cannot  avoid  making:  the  earlier  philosophy  which  we 
designate  by  the  names  of  Pythagi)ras,  Parmcnides,  Hera- 
clitus,  Aaaxaguras,  Empedccle^,  &ec.  has  evidently  a  common 
type,  and  the  later,  in  which  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Zeno  are 
the  cuuspicuous  names,  has  likewise  one  of  its  own,  which 
is  very  different  from  the  uther.  Nothing  can  have  been 
lost  between  them,  which  could  have  formed  a  gradual  transi- 
tion :  niucli  less  i^  it  {possible  so  to  connect  any  uf  the  later 
forms  with  any  of  the  earlier,  as  to  regard  them  as  a  continu- 
ous whole.  This  being  so,  nothing  remains  to  be  done,  but 
to  subject  the  case  of  Socrates  to  a  new  revision,  in  order 
to  see  whether  the  judges  he  has  met  with  among  posterity 
have  not  been  as  unjust,  in  denying  his  philosophical  worth, 
and  his  merits  iu  the  cause  of  philosophy,  as  his  cou temporaries 
were  in  denying  his  worth  as  a  citizen,  and  imputing  to  him 
imaginary  offences  against  the  commonwealth.  But  this  would 
render  it  necessary  to  ascertain  somewhat  more  distinctly, 
wherein  his  philosophical  merit  consists. 

But  tliis  new  inquiry  naturally  leads  us  back  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  old  question,  whether  we  otl-  to  believe  Plato 
or  Xcnophon  in  their  accounts  of  what  Socrates  was ;  a  ques- 
tion»  however,  which  only  deserves  to  be  proposed  at  all,  so 
far  as  these  two  autliors  are  really  at  variance  with  eacli  other, 
and  which  therefore  only  admits  of  a  rational  answer,  after  it 
has  been  decided  whether  such  a  variance  exists,  and  where  it 
lies.  Plato  nowhere  professes  himself  the  historian  of  Socrates; 
with  the  exception  perhaps  of  the  Apology,  and  of  insulated 
passages,  Ruch  ns  the  speech  of  Alcibiades  iu  the  Banquet. 
For  it  wouhl  certainly  have  been  in  bad  taste,  if  here,  where 
Plato  is  making  contem}K]rarie!)  of  Socrates  speak  of  hioi  in 
his  presence,  he  had  exhibited  him  in  a  manner  that  was  not 
substantially  faithful,  though  even  here  many  of  the  details 
may  have  been  introduced  f<»r  the  sake  of  playful  exaggeration. 
On  the  other  bund,  Plato  himself  dm-s  not  warrant  any  one 
to  consider  all  that  he  makes  Socrates  say  in  his  dialogues,  as 
his  real  thoughts  and  language ;  and  it  would  be  rendering 
hira  but  a  poor  service  to  confine  his  merit  to  that  of  having 
given  a  correct  and  skilful  report  of  the  doctrines  of  Socrates. 
On  the  contrary,   he   undoubtedly   means  his  philosophy   to 


Oti  the  Worth  of  .yocroBT 

be  considered  as  his  own,  and  not  Socrates*.  And  accordingly 
every  intelligent  reader  is  pn>bably  convinced  by  his  own 
reflexions,  that  none  but  original  thoughts  can  appear  in  such 
a  dress;  whereas  a  work  of  mere  narrative — and  such  these 
dialogues  would  be,  if  the  whole  of  the  matter  belonged  to 
Socrates — would  necessarily  shew  a  fainter  tone  of  colouring^, 
such  as  Xenophon's  conversations  really  present.  But  as  on 
the  one  hand  it  would  he  too  much  to  assert  that  Socrates 
actually  thought  and  knew  all  that  Plato  makes  him  say : 
so  on  the  other  hand  it  would  certainly  be  too  little  to  say 
of  him,  that  he  was  nothing  more  than  the  Socrates  whom 
Xenophon  represents.  Xenophon,  it  is  true,  in  the  Memo- 
rabilia, professes  himself  a  narrator ;  but,  in  the  first  place, 
a  man  of  sense  can  only  relate  what  he  understands,  and  a 
disciple  of  Socrates,  who  must  have  been  well  acquainted 
with  his  master's  habit  of  disclaiming  knowledge,  would  of 
all  men  adhere  moat  strictly  to  this  rule.  We  know  however, 
and  this  may  be  admitted  without  being  harshly  pressed,  that 
Xenophon  was  a  statesman,  but  no  philosopher,  and  that 
beside  the  purity  of  his  character,  and  the  good  sense  of  his 
political  principles,  beside  his  admirable  power  of  rousing 
the  intellect,  and  checking  presumption,  which  Xenophon 
loved  and  respected  in  Socrates,  the  latter  may  have  possest 
some  really  philosophical  elements  wliich  Xenophon  was  un- 
able to  appropriate  to  himself,  and  which  he  suffered  to  pass 
unnoticed ;  which  indeed  he  can  have  felt  no  temptation  to 
exhibit,  for  fear  of  betraying  defects  such  as  those  which 
his  Socrates  was  wont  to  expose.  On  the  other  hand,  Xeno- 
phon was  un  apologetic  narrator,  and  had  no  doubt  selected 
this  form  for  the  very  purpose,  that  his  readers  might  not 
expect  him  to  exhibit  Socrates  entire,  but  only  that  part  of 
his  character  which  belonged  to  the  sphere  of  the  aflections 
and  of  social  life,  and  which  bore  upon  the  charges  brought 
against  him ;  everything  else  he  excludes,  contenting  himself 
with  shewing,  that  it  cannot  have  been  anything  of  so  dan- 
gerous a  tendency  as  was  imputed  to  Socrates.  And  not 
only  may  Socrates,  he  must  have  been  more,  and  there  must 
have  been  more  in  the  background  of  his  speeches,  than 
Xenophon  rcpresentB.  For  if  the  contemporaries  of  Socrates 
had  heard  nothing  from  him  but  such  discourses,  how  would 


Plato  have  marrftl  the  effccl  of  his  works  on  his  immediate 
public,  which  hail  not  yet  forgotten  the  character  of  Socrates, 
if  the  part  which  Socrates  plays  there  stood  in  direct  con- 
tradiction with  the  image  which  his  real  life  had  left  in  the 
reader^s  mind  ?  And  if  we  believe  Xenophon,  and  in  this 
respect  we  cannot  doubt  the  accuracy  of  the  contemporary 
apologist,  that  Socrates  spent  the  whole  of  his  time  in  public 
places,  and  suppose  that  he  was  always  engaged  in  discourses 
which*  though  they  may  have  been  more  beautiful,  varied, 
and  dazzling,  were  still  in  substance  the  same  with  these, 
and  moved  in  the  same  sphere  to  which  the  Memorabilia  are 
confined :  one  is  at  a  loss  to  understand,  how  it  was  that, 
in  the  course  of  sa  many  years,  Socrates  did  not  clear  the 
marketplace,  and  the  workshops,  the  walks,  and  the  wrestling- 
schools,  by  the  dread  of  his  presence,  and  how  it  is  that, 
in  XeDophon''s  native  Flemish  style  of  painting,  the  weariness 
of  the  interlocutors  is  not  still  more  strongly  exprest,  than 
we  here  and  there  actually  find  it.  And  still  less  should  we 
be  able  to  comprehend,  why  men  of  such  abilities  as  Critias 
and  Alcibiades,  and  others  formed  by  nature  for  speculation, 
as  Plato  and  Euclid,  set  so  high  a  value  on  their  intercourse 
with  Socrates,  and  found  satisfaction  in  it  so  long.  Nor  can 
it  be  supposed,  that  Sixrrates  held  discourses  in  public  such 
as  Xenophon  put»  into  his  mouth,  but  that  he  delivered 
lessons  of  a  different  kind  elsewhere,  and  in  private;  for  this, 
considering  the  apologetic  form  of  Xenophon^s  book,  to  which 
he  rigidly  confines  himself,  he  woold  probably  not  have  passed 
over  in  silence.  Socrates  must  have  disclosed  the  philosophical 
element  of  his  character  in  the  same  social  circle  of  which 
Xenophon  gives  us  specimens.  And  is  not  this  just  the  im- 
pression which  Xenophon^s  conversations  make  ?  philosophical 
matter,  translated  into  the  unphilosophieal  style  of  the  common 
understanding,  an  operation  in  which  the  philosophical  base 
is  lost;  just  as  some  critics  have  proposed,  by  way  of  test 
for  the  productions  of  the  loftiest  poetry,  to  resolve  them 
into  prose,  and  evaporate  their  spirit,  which  can  leave  no- 
thing but  an  extremely  sober  kind  of  beauty  remaining.  And 
as  after  such  an  experiment  llie  greatest  of  poets  would 
scarcely  be  able  exactly  to  restore  the  lost  poetry,  but  yet 
a  reader  of  moderate  capacity  soon  observes  what   has  been 


546 


On  the  Worth  of  Socrates 


done,  and  can  even  point  it  out  in  several  passages,  where 
the  decomposing  hand  lias  grown  tired  of  its  work :  so  it  is 
in  the  other  case  with  the  philosophical  basis.  One  finds 
some  parallels  with  Plato>  other  fragments  are  detected  in 
other  ways:  and  the  only  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the 
scarcity  of  tliesc  passages  i^,  that  Xenophon  understood  his 
business ;  unless  we  choose  to  say,  that  as  Aristotle  is  sup- 
posed to  have  held  his  philosophical  discourses  in  the  fore- 
noon, and  the  exoteric  in  the  afternoon  (Gellins  N.  A.  xx.  5), 
Socrates  reversed  this  order,  and  in  the  morning  held  con- 
versations in  the  marketplace  with  the  artisans,  and  others 
who  were  less  familiar  with  him,  which  Xenophon  found  it 
easier  to  divest  of  their  philosophical  aspect :  but  that  of  an 
evening,  in  the  walks,  and  wrestlingschools,  he  engaged  in 
those  Bubtiter,  deeper,  and  wittier  dialogues  with  his  favorites, 
which  it  was  reserved  for  Plato  to  imitate,  embellish,  and 
expand,  while  he  connected  his  own  investigations  with  them. 
And  thus,  to  HIl  up  the  blank  which  Xenophon  has  uiani- 
festly  left,  wc  are  still  driven  back  to  the  Socrates  of  Plato, 
and  the  shortest  way  of  releasing  ourselves  from  the  difficulty, 
would  be  to  lind  a  rule  by  which  we  aiuld  determine,  what 
is  the  reflex,  and  the  property,  of  Socrates  in  Plato,  and  what 
his  own  invention  and  addition.  Only  the  problem  is  not 
to  be  solved  by  a  process  such  as  that  adopted  by  Meiners, 
whose  critical  talent  is  of  a  kind  to  which  this  subject  in 
general  was  not  very  well  suited.  For  if  in  all  that  Plato 
has  left  we  are  to  select  only  what  is  least  speculative,  least 
artificial,  least  poetical,  and  hence,  for  so  we  are  taught, 
least  enthusiastic,  we  shall  indeed  still  retain  much  matter 
for  this  more  refined  and  pregnant  species  of  dialogues,  to 
season  Xenophon's  tediousness,  but  it  will  be  impossible  in 
this  way  to  discover  any  properly  philosophical  basis  in  the 
constitution  of  Socrates.  For  if  we  exclude  all  depth  of 
speculation,  nothing  is  left  but  results,  without  the  grounds 
and  methodical  principles  on  which  they  depend,  and  which 
therefore  Socrates  can  only  liave  possest  instinctively,  that 
is  without  the  aid  of  philosophy.  The  only  safe  method 
seems  to  be,  to  inquire :  Wliat  may  Socrates  have  lieen, 
over  and  above  what  Xenophon  has  described,  without  how- 
ever contradicting  the  strokes  of  character,  and  the  practical 


as  a   Philosopher. 


647 


maxims,    which    Xt.nm]>hon    distinctly    delivers    as    those    of 
Socrates:  ftnd  what  must  lie  have  been,  to  give  Plato  a  right, 
and  an  inducement,   to   exhibit  him   as  he  has  done  in  his 
dialogues?      Now  the  latter  branch  of  this  question  inevitably 
I  leiuls  us  back  to  the  historical  position  from  which  wc  started; 
that  Socrates  must  have  had  a  strict!)'  plnlosophical  basis  in 
I  his  compu.s)tiun,  so  far  as  he  is  virtually  recognized  by  Plato 
'  as  the  author  of  his  philosopliical  life,  and  is  therefore  to  be 
regarded  as  the  iirst   vital   movement   of  Greek   philosopliy 
in  its  more  advanced  stage;    and  that  he  can  only  be  entitled 
to  this  place  by  an   clement,  wliich,   though  properly  philo- 
sophical,   was  foreign  to   the   preceding   periotl.     Here  how- 
ever  we  must  for  the  present    be  content    to  say,    that   the 
property    which  is    peculiar  to    the   post-Socratic  philosophy, 
beginning   with    Plato,   and    which    henceforward   is   common 
to  all   the  genuine    Socratic  schools,    is    the   coexistence   and 
intercommunion  of  the  three  branches  of  knowledge,  dialectics, 
physics,   ethics.      This  distinction    separates   the    two   periods 
very  definitely.     For   before    Socrates   either   these   branches 
were  kept  entirely  apart,    or  their  subjects  were  blended  to- 
gether without  due   discrimination,   and  without  any   definite 
proportion :  as  for  Instance  ethics  and  physics  among  the  Py> 
thagorcans,    physics   and  dialectics   among   the  Eleatics;    the 
lonians  alone,   though  their  tendency  was  wholly  to  physics, 
made  occasional  excursions,  though  qm'te  at  random,  into  the 
re^on    both   of    dialectics   and   of  ethics.      But    when    some 
writers  refuse  Plato  himself  the  honour  of  having  distinguished 
and  combined  these  sciences,  and  ascribe  this  step  to  Xeno- 
cratcs,  and   think    that  even   Aristotle  abandoned   it  again ; 
this  in  my  opinion  is  grounded  on  a  misunderstanding,  which 
however  it  would  here  lead   us  too  far  to  explain.     Now  it 
is    true  wc  cannot    assert,    that  Socrates   was  the    first   who 
combined   the  characters  of  a  physical,  ethical,  and   dialectic 
philosopher  in  one  person,  especially  as  Plato  and  Xenophon 
agree   in   taking   physics  out   of   his   range;    nor' can   it   be 
positively  said   that  Socrates  was  at  least   the  autlior  of  this 
distribution  of  science,  though  its  germ  may  certaiidy  be  found 
from  the  Memorabilia,      But  we  may  surely   inquire  whether 
this   phenenicnon    has    not    some   simpler   and    more    internal 
cause,  and  whether  this  mav  not  Ih:  found  in  Socrates.     The 
Vol.  II.  No.  6.  '   4  A 


548 


On  tkf    Wurth  of  Socrates 


following;  ohwrvalion  will,   I   concci\*e,    be   admitted    without 
much   dispute.     So   long   as    inquirers    arc   apt   to    step    un- 
wittingly   across    the   boundaries   tliat    separate   one  province 
of  knowledge  from  another,  so  long,  and  in  the  same  degree, 
does  the  whole  course  of  their  intellectual  operations  depend 
on  outward  circumstances :   for  it   is   only  a  systematic    dis- 
tribution of  the  whole  field  that  can  lead   to  a  regular  and 
connected  cultivation  of  it.     In  the  same  way,  so  long  as  the 
several  sciences  are  pursued  singly,  and  their  respective  vo- 
taries contentedly  acquiesce   in  this  insulation,   so   long,   and 
in  the  came  degree,  is  the  specific  instinct  for  the  object  of 
each  science  predominant  in  the  whole  sphere  of  intellect  ual 
exertion.     But  as  soon  as  the  need  of  the  connexion  and  co- 
ordinate growth  of  all  the  branches  of  knowledge  has  become 
80  distinctly  felt,  as  to  express  itself  by  the  form  in  whicb 
thoy  are  treated  and  described,  in  a  manner  which  can  never 
again  be  lost ;    so  far  us   this  is  the  case,  it  is  no  longer  par- 
ticidar  talents  and  instincts,  but   the  general  scientific  talent 
of  speculation,    that   has   the  ascendant.     In    the   former    of 
these  cases  it  must  Ix.*  confcase*!,  that  the  idea  of  science  aA 
such  is  not  yet  matured,  perhaps  has  not  even  bec*ime  the 
subject  of  consciousness,  for  science  as  such  can  only  be  con- 
ceivetl  as  a  whole,  in  which  every  division  is  merely  subordi- 
nate, just  a.s  the  real  world  to  which  it  ouglit    to  correspond. 
In  the  latter  casc^  on  the  contrary,   this  idea  has  become  n 
subject  of  consciousness;   for  it  can   ha%*e   been  only  by  its 
force  that  the  particular  inclinations  which  confine  each  thinker 
to  a  certain  object,  and  split  science  into  insulated  parts,  have 
been  mastered.     And  this  is  unquestionably  a  simpler  criterion 
to  distinguish  the  two  periods  of  Greek  philosophy,      fn  the 
earlier  period,   the  idea  of   science  as  such   was  not  tlie  go- 
verning idea,  and  had  not  even  become  a  distinct  subject  of 
consciousness :  and  this  it  is  that  gives  rise  to  the  obscurity 
which   we   perceive    in   all    the   philosophical    productions    of 
that  period,  through  the  appearance  of  caprice  which  results 
from  the  want  of  conRciousncss,  and   through   the   imperfec- 
tion   of   the   scientific    language,  which    is  gradually  forming 
itself  out  of  the  poetical  and  historical  vocabulary.     In  the 
second    period,  on    the   other   hand,  the   iilea  of  science  has. 
become  a  subject  of  conBciousness.      Htmce  the  main  business 


Philosopher. 


549 


everywhere  is  to  diBtinginsh  knowledge  iroiii  upinion,  hence  the 
prccinion  of  t^ciciitiHc  language,  hence  the  peculim  prominence 
of  dialectics,  which  have  no  other  object  tlian  the  idea  of 
science;  thiog«  which  were  not  comprehended  even  by  the 
Eleatics  in  the  ^ame  way  aa  by  the  Socracic  schools,  since  the 
former  still  make  the  idea  of  being  their  starting-point,  rather 
than  that  of  knowledge. 

Now  this  waking  of  the  idea  of  science,  and  its  earliest 
manifestations,  must  have  been,  in  the  first  instance,  what  con- 
stituted the  philosophical  basis  in  Socrates ;  and  for  this  reason 
he  is  justly  regarded  as  the  founder  of  that  later  Greek  phi- 
losophy, which  in  its  whole  essential  form,  together  with  its 
several  variations,  was  determined  by  that  idea.  This  is  proved 
clearly  enough  by  the  historical  statements  in  Plato,  and  this 
too  is  what  must  be  Bup]>1ied  in  Xenophon's  conversations,  in 
order  to  make  them  worthy  of  Socrates,  and  Socrates  of  his 
admirers.  For  if  he  went  about  in  the  senHcc  of  the  god,  to 
justify  the  celebrated  orncic,  it  was  in)|M>ssible  that  tlie  utmost 
point  he  reacliwl  could  liave  Ihx'II  simply  to  know  that  he  knew 
nothing;  there  was  a  step  l>eyond  this  which  he  must  have 
taken,  that  of  knowing  what  knowledge  was.  For  by  what 
other  means  could  he  have  been  enabled  to  declare  that  which 
others  believed  themselves  to  know,  to  l>c  no  knowledge,  than  by 
a  more  correct  conception  of  knowle<lge,  and  by  a  more  correct 
method  founded  upon  that  conception  ?  And  every  where,  when 
he  is  explaining  the  nature  of  non-science  {avevt^TtifjuKruvrf), 
one  sees  that  he  sets  out  from  two  tests:  one,  (hat  science  is 
the  name  in  all  true  thoughts,  and  consequently  must  manifest 
its  peculiar  form  in  every  such  thought:  the  other,  that  all 
science  forms  one  whole.  For  his  proofs  always  hinge  on  this 
assumption:  that  it  is  impossible  to  start  from  one  true  thought, 
and  to  Ik-  entangled  in  a  contradiction  with  any  other*  and  also 
that  knowledge  (lerived  from  any  one  point,  and  obtained  by 
correct  combination,  cannot  contradict  that  which  has  been 
deduced  in  like  manner  from  any  other  point ;  and  while  he 
exposed  such  contradictions  in  the  current  conceptions  of  man- 
kind, he  strove  to  rouse  those  leading  ideas  in  all  who  were 
capable  of  understanding,  or  even  of  divining  his  meaning. 
Most  of  what  Xenophon  has  preserved  for  us  may  be  referred 
to  ihiB  object,   and    the  same  endeavour   is  intb'cnietl  ilearly 


550 


On  the  Worth  of  Socrates 


enough  in  nil  that  StMrrates  says  of  himself  in  Plato's  Apology, 
and  what  Alcibiadcs  says  of  him  in  his  eulogy.  So  that  if  we 
conceive  this  to  have  been  the  central  point  in  tlic  character  of 
Socrates,  we  may  reconcile  Plato  and  XenophoOi  and  can  un- 
derstand the  historical  position  of  Socrates. 

When  Xcnopliou  says  (Mem.  iv.  6.  15.):  that  as  often  as 
Socratcd  did  not  itierelv  refute  the  errors  of  others,  but  at- 
tempted to  demonstrate  sometliing  himself,  he  took  his  road 
through  propositions  which  were  most  generally  admitted :  we 
can  perfectly  understand  this  mode  t>f  proceetliug,  as  the  result 
of  the  design  just  described;  he  wished  to  find  as  few  Iiindraiices 
and  diversions  as  j>06sible  in  liis  way,  that  he  might  illustrate 
his  method  clearly  and  simply  ;  and  propositions,  if  there  were 
such,  which  all  held  to  be  certain,  must  liave  appeared  to  him 
the  most  eligible,  in  order  that  he  might  shew  in  their  case, 
that  the  conviction  with  whicli  they  were  embraced  was  oot 
knowledge;  since  this  would  render  men  more  keenly  fienwble 
of  the  necessity  of  getting  at  the  foundation  of  knowledge,  and 
of  taking  their  stand  upon  it,  in  order  to  give  a  new  shape  to 
ail  human  things.  Hence  too  we  may  explain  the  preponder- 
ance of  the  subjects  connected  with  civil  and  domestic  life  in 
moat  of  these  conversations.  Fur  this  was  the  field  that  i^up- 
plied  the  most  generally  admitted  conceptions  and  pru[H)sitiuns, 
the  fate  of  which  interested  all  men  alike.  But  this  mode  of 
proceeding  becomes  inexplicable,  if  it  is  supposed  that  Socrates 
attached  the  chief  importance  to  the  subject  of  these  conversa- 
tions. That  must  havt-  been  tjuite  a  secondary  point.  For 
when  the  object  is  to  elucidute  any  subject,  it  is  necessary  to 
pay  attention  to  the  less  familiar  and  more  disputed  views  of  it, 
and  how  meager  most  of  those  discussions  in  Xenophon  are  in 
this  respect,  is  evident  enough.  Prom  the  same  point  of  view  we 
must  also  consider  the  controversy  of  Socrates  with  the  Sophists. 
So  for  as  it  was  directed  against  their  maxims,  it  does  not  be- 
long to  our  present  question ;  it  is  merely  the  opposition  of  a 
good  citizen  to  the  corrupters  of  government  and  of  youth. 
But  even  looking  at  it  from  the  purely  theoretical  side,  it  would 
be  idle  to  represent  this  contrast  as  the  germ  of  a  new  period 
of  philosophy,  if  Socrates  had  only  impugned  opinions  which 
were  the  monstrous  shapes  into  which  the  doctrines  of  an  earlier 
school  had  degenerated,  wjthout  having  established  any  iu  their 


as  a  PkiUmopher. 


551 


~Bteaa7  which  iiolxxly  supposes  him  to  have  done.  But  tor  the 
purpose  of  awakening  the  true  idea  uf  science,  the  sophists  must 
have  been  the  most  welcome  of  all  disputants  to  him,  since  they 
had  reduced  their  opinions  into  the  most  perfect  form  ;  and 
hence  were  proud  of  them  themselves,  and  were  jieculiurly  ad- 
mired by  others.  If,  therefore,  he  could  succeed,  iu  exposing 
their  weakness,  the  value  of  a  principle  so  triumphantly  applied 
would  he  rendered  most  conspicuous. 

But  in  order  to  shew  the  imperfection  of  the  current  con- 
ceptions both  in  the  theories  of  the  Sophists,  and  in  common 
life,  if  the  issue  was  not  to  be  left  to  chance,  some  certain 
method  was  requisite.  For  it  was  often  necessary  in  the  course 
of  the  process  to  lay  down  intermediate  notions,  which  it  was 
necessary  to  define  to  the  satisfaction  t)f  both  parties;  otlierwiso, 
all  that  was  done  would  afterwards  have  looked  like  a  paltry 
surprise;  and  the  contradiction  between  tlie  proposition  in 
question,  and  one  that  was  admitted,  could  never  be  detected 
uithuut  ascertaining  what  notions  might  or  might  not  be  con- 
nected witli  a  ^iveii  one.  Now  tliis  method  is  laid  down  in  the 
two  problems  which  Plato  states  in  the  rhffi<irus,  as  the  two 
niaiji  elements  in  the  art  of  dialectics,  that  is,  to  know  first  how 
correctly  to  combine  miiltiplicitv  in  unity,  and  again  to  diride 
a  complex  unity  according  to  its  nature  into  a  multiplicity,  and 
next  to  know  what  notions  may  or  may  not  be  connected  to- 
gether. It  is  by  this  means  that  Socrates  became  the  real 
founder  of  dialectics,  which  continued  to  be  the  soul  of  all  the 
great  edifices  reared  in  later  times  by  Greek  philoso}thy,  and  by 
its  decided  prominence,  constitutes  the  cliief  distinction  between 
the  later  period  and  the  earlier;  so  that  one  cannot  but  com- 
mend the  historical  instinct  which  has  assigned  so  high  a  station 
to  Iiim.  At  the  same  time  this  is  not  meant  to  deny,  that 
Euclid  and  Plato  carried  this  science,  as  well  as  the  rest,  farther 
toward  maturity;  but  it  is  manifest  that  in  its  first  |>rinciples, 
Socrates  possessed  it  as  a  science,  and  practised  it  as  an  art,  in 
8  manner  peculiar  to  himself.  For  the  construction  uf  all  So- 
crntic  dialogues,  as  well  of  those  doubtfully  ascribed  to  Plato, 
and  of  those  attributed  with  any  degree  of  probability  to  other 
origiaal  disciples  of  SocraCea,  as  of  all  those  reported  iu  the 
Memorabilia,  hinges  without  any  exception  nn  this  point.  Th« 
same  inference  results  from  the  testiniouy  of  Aristotle  (Mctaph. 


552 


On  the   Wwrth  of  Sttcratea 


1.  6.  XIII.  4.) :  that  what  may  be  justly  ascribed  to  Socrates,  i» 
t}iat  he  introduced  induction  and  general  definitinns;  a  testi- 
mony which  bt^ars  every  mark  of  impartiality  and  truth.  Hence 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Socrates  taught  this  art  of 
framing  and  connecting  notions  correctly.  Since  however  it  ia 
an  art,  abstract  teaching  was  not  sufHcient,  and  therefore  no 
doubt  Socrates  never  so  taught  it :  it  was  an  art  that  roqiiirecl 
to  be  witnessed  and  practised  in  the  most  manifold  applications, 
and  one  who  was  not  firmly  grounded  in  it,  and  left  the  school 
too  early,  lost  it  again,  and  with  it  almost  all  that  was  to  be 
learnt  from  Socrates,  as  indeed  is  observed  in  Plato's  dialogue*. 
Now  that  this  exercise  and  illustration  was  the  main  object  of 
convei'sations  held  by  Socrates  even  on  general  moral  subjects,^ 
ia  expressly  admitted  by  Xenophon  himself,  whoi,  under  th< 
head :  what  Socrates  did  to  render  his  friends  more  cxjx;rt  in 
dialectics,  he  introduces  a  great  many  sucii  discourses  and  in- 
quiries, which  BO  closely  resemble  the  rest,  that  all  might  just 
aa  well  have  l>een  put  in  the  same  class. 

It  was  with  a  view  therefore  to  become  masters  in  tliis  art, 
and  thereby  to  keep  the  faster  hold  of  the  idea  of  science,  that 
men  of  vigorous  and  .sjwculative  minds  formed  a  circle  round 
Socrates  as  long  aa  circumstances  allowed,  those  who  were  able 
Co  the  end  of  his  life,  and  in  the  mean  while  chose  to  tread 
closely  in  their  master's  steps,  and  to  refrain  for  a  time  from 
making  a  systematic  application  of  his  art  in  the  different  de- 
partments of  knowledge,  for  the  more  elaborate  cultivation  of 
all  the  sciences.  But  when  after  his  death  the  most  eminent 
among  them,  first  of  all  »t  Megara,  began  a  strictly  scientific 
train  of  speculation,  and  thus  philosophy  gradually  ripened 
into  the  shape  which,  with  slight  variations,  it  ever  after  re- 
tained among  the  Greeks:  what  now  took  place  was  not  indeed 
what  Socrates  did,  or  perhaps  could  have  done,  but  yet  it  was 
undoubtedly  his  will.  To  this  it  may  indeed  be  objected,  that 
Xenophon  expressly  says  (Mem.  i.  1.  n.):  that  Socrates  in  his 
riper  years  not  only  himself  gave  up  all  application  to  natural 
philosophy,  but  endeavoured  to  withhold  all  others  from  it, 
and  directed  them  to  the  consideration  of  human  affairs;  and 
hence  many  hold  those  only  to  be  genuine  Socratics,  who 
did  not  include  pliysics  in  their  system.  But  this  statement 
must  manifestly  be   taken   in  a  sense  much   les**  general,  and 


rtj(  a   Phdmnpher. 


053 


quite  different  from  that  which  is  usually  given  to  it.     This  is 
clearly  evinceil  by  the  reasons  which  Socrates  alledges.     For 
how  could  he  have   said  so  generally,  that  the  things   which 
depend  nn  Gixt  ought  not  to  be  made  the  subject  of  inquiry, 
before  those  wliich  depend  on  raan  have  been  despatched,  since 
not  only  arc  the  latter  connected  in  a  variety  of  ways  with  the 
former,  but  even  among  things  human  there  must  be  some  of 
greater  moment,  others  of  less,  some  of  nearer,  others  of  more 
remote   concern,  and  the  proposition  would  lead   to  the  oon- 
cIu»ion  that  before  one  was  brought  to  its  completion,  not  even 
the  iavestigation  of  another  ought  to  be  begun.      This  might 
have  been  not  unfairly  turned  bv  a  sophist  against  Socrates 
himself,  if  he  had  ilragged  in  a  notion  apparently  less  familiar, 
in  order  to  illustrate  another  ;  and  certainly  this  proposition, 
taken  in  a  general  sense,  would  not  only  have  endangered  the 
conduct  of  life,  but  would  also  have  altogether  destroyed  tlie 
Socratic  ideaof  science,  that  nothing  can  be  known  except  t<^'tber 
with  (he  rest,  and  along  with  its  relation  to  all  things  beside. 
The  real  case  is  simply  this.     It  is  clear  tliat  Socrates  bad  no 
peculiar  talent  for  any  single  science,  and  least  of  all  for  that 
of  physics.    Now  it  is  true  that  a  merely  metaphysical  thinker 
may  feel  himself  attracted  toward  all  sciences,  as  was  tlie  case 
with  Kant;  but  then  this  happens  under  different  circumstances, 
and  a  dilierent  mental  constitution  from  that  of  Socrateu.     He 
on  the  contrary  made  no  excursions  to  points  remote  from  his 
centre,  but  devoted   his  whole  life  to  the  task  of  exciting  his 
leading  idea  as  extensively  and  as  vividly  as  possible  in  others ; 
bis  whole  aim  was,  that  whatever  form  man''s  wishes  and  hopes 
might   take,  according  to  individual  ciuu*actcr  and  accidental 
circumstances,  this  foundation  might  bo  securely  laid,  before  he 
proceeded  further.     But  till  then  his  advice  was,  not  to  accu- 
mulate fresh  masses  of  opinions;   this  he  for  his  part  would 
permit  only  so  far  as  it  was  demanded  bv  the  wants  of  active 
life,  and  for  this  reason  he  might  say,  that  if  those  who  investi- 
gated meteoric  phenomena  had  any  hopt  of  producing  them  at 
their   pleasure,   he  should   be  more   ready    to  admit   their  re- 
searches: language,  which  in  any  other  sense  but  this  would 
have  be^t  absurd.     We  cannot  therefore  conclude  from  this 
that  Socrates  did  not  wiwh  that  physics  should  be  cultivated, 
any  more  than  we  arc  authorised  to  suppose,  that  lie  fancied  it 


554 


On  the    Worth  of  Sacraien 


possible  lo  form  cthiis  into  a  science  by  sufficiently  multiplying 
thoee  fpagnientarv  investigations  into  which  he  wus  drawn  in 
discussing  the  received  opinions  on  the  subject.  The  tmme  lajl 
of  jirtigression  was  int-oluntarilv  retained  in  Iiis  school.  For 
Plato,  though  he  desceiuls  into  al)  the  Bcieaccs,  still  lays  the 
principal  stress  on  the  establishment  of  principles,  and  expati- 
ates in  details  only  so  far  as  they  are  necessary,  and  so  much 
the  less  as  he  has  to  draw  them  from  without:  it  is  Aristotle 
who  first  revelB  in  their  multiplicity.  fl 

This  appears  to  me  as  much  as  can  be  said  with  certaint^ 
of  the  worth  of  Socrates  as  a  philosoper.      Uut  should  any  one 
proceed  to  ask,  how  far  he  elaborated  the  idea  of  science  in  hil 
lessons,  or  in  what  degree  he  ])romoted  the  discovery  of  reaP 
knowledge  in  any  other  provint;e  hy  his  controversial  discus- 
sions, and  his  dialectic  assays,   there  would  perhaps  Ik  little  to 
say  on  this  head,  and  least  of  oil  should  I  be  able  to  extricate 
any  thing  to  serve  this  purpose  from  the  works  of  Plato  taken 
by  themselves.      Tor  there  in  all  that  belongs  to  Plato  there  ^~ 
something  of  Socrates,  and  iu  all  that  belongs  to  Socrates  some 
thing  of  Plato.     Only  if  any  one  is  desirous  of  describing  do 
trines  peculiar  to  Socrates,  let  him  not,  as  many  do  in  histories 
of  philosophy  fur  the  sake  of  at  least  filling  up  some  space  with 
Socrates,  string  together  dctaclied  moral  theses,  which,  as  they 
arose  out  of  occasional  discussions,  can  never  make  up  a  whole, 
and  as  to  other  subjects,   let  liim    not  lose  &ight  of  the  above 
quoted  passage  of  Aristotle,  who  confines  Socrates'  philosophical 
speculations  to  principles.      The  first  point  therefore  to  examine 
would  Iw,    whether  M)nie   profound  speculative  doctrines   may 
not  have  originally  l>elonged  to  Socrates,  which  are  generally 
considered  as  most  foreign  to  him,  for  instance,    the  thought 
which  is  unfolded  by  Plato  in  his  peculiar  manner,  but  is  exhi-| 
bitcd  in  the  germ  by  Xenophon  himself  (Mem.  i.  4>.  8.),  and  is] 
intimately  connected  with  the  great  dialectic  question  as  to  thel 
agreement  between  thought  and  being:  that  of  the  general  dir-J 
fusion  of  intelligence  throughout  the  whole  of  nature.     With| 
this    one  might  connect  the   assertion   of  Aristocles  (Euseb. 
Prnep.  xi.  s),  that  Socrates  began  the  investigation  of  the  doe- 
trine  of  ideas.      But  the  testimony  of  this  late  Peripatetic  ii 
suspicious,   and  may   have  had  no  other  foundation  than  thej 
language  of  Socrates  iu  the  Parmcnides. 


as  n  Phitosopher. 


555 


But  whether  much  or  little  of  this  and  other  ductrines  be- 
longed to  Socrates  himself,  the  general  idea  already  described 
cannot  fail  to  suggest  a  more  correct  mode  of  conceiving,  in 
what  light  it  is  that  Plato  brings  forward  his  master  in  his 
works,  and  in  what  sense  his  Socrates  is  to  be  termed  a  real,  or 
a  fictitious  personage.  Fictitious,  in  the  proper  sense,  I  hold, 
he  is  not,  and  his  reality  is  not  a  merely  mimic  one,  nor  is 
Socrates  in  those  works  merely  a  convenient  person  who  aifords 
room  for  much  mimic  art,  and  much  cheerful  pleasantry,  in 
order  to  temper  the  abstruse  investigations  with  this  agreeable 
addition.  It  is  because  the  spirit  and  the  method  of  Socrates 
are  everywhere  predominant,  and  because  it  is  not  a  merely  sub- 
ordinate point  with  Plato  to  adopt  the  manner  of  Socrates, 
but  is  as  truly  his  highest  aim,  that  Plato  has  not  hesitated 
to  put  into  his  mouth  what  he  believed  to  be  no  more  than 
deductions  from  his  fundamental  ideas.  The  only  material  ex- 
ceptions we  find  to  this  (passing  over  several  more  minute  which 
come  under  the  same  head  with  the  anachronisms)  occur  in  later 
works,  08  the  Statesman  and  the  Republic ;  I  mean  doctrines  of 
Plato  foreign  to  the  real  views  of  Socrates,  perhaps  indeed  virtu- 
ally contradicting  them,  and  which  are  nevertheless  put  into 
his  mouth.  On  this  head  we  must  let  Plato  ap]>eal  to  the  pri- 
vilege conferred  by  custom.  But  on  the  whole  we  are  forced 
to  say,  that  in  giving  Socrates  a  living  share  in  the  propagation 
of  that  philosophical  movement  which  took  its  rise  from  him, 
Plato  has  immortalized  him  in  the  noblest  manner,  that  a  dis- 
ciple can  perpetuate  the  glory  of  his  master;  in  a  manner  not 
only  more  beautiful,  but  more  just,  than  he  could  have  done 
it  by  a  literal  narrative. 

C.  T. 


Vol.  II.   No  f). 


4B 


SCHLEIERMACHER'S    INTRODUCTION 


TO   HIH   THAKeLAriOM   OF 


PLATO'S  APOLOGY  OF  SOCRATES. 


I  HATE  already  obf^rved,  in  the  general  Introduction 
this  translation  of  Plato,  that  the  reader  is  not  to  conclude* 
because  certain  works  are  placed  in  an  appendix,  that  by  this  I 
mean  to  deny  or  to  colt  in  question  with  regard  to  all  of  theio» 
that  they  are  writings  of  Plato.     My  only  reason  for  assigning 
such  a  place  to  the  following  work,  which  ha.s  been  at  all  times 
loved  and  admired  for  the  spirit  that  breathes  through  it,   aodL 
the  image  it  presents  of  calm  moral  dignity  and   beauty,   v^M 
in  the  first  instance  that  it  contents  itself  with  its  particuUr 
object,  and  makes  no  pretensions  to  the  title  of  a  scientific  workg 
It  is  true  that  the  Euthyphron  likewise  has  unquestionably  afl 
apologetic  reference   to  the  charge  brought  against  Socrates ; 
but  on  the  other  hand  its  connection  with   the  notions  started 
in  the  Protagoro:!,    clearly  entitled  it  to  be  subjoined  to    that 
dialogue.      But  the  Ajiology  is  so  purely  an  occasional   piece, 
tliat  it  can  find  no  place  in  the  series  of  its  author'^s  philusuphicaL 
productions.     Yet  there  is  certainly  one  sense,  in  which,  1m 
not  the  reader  be  startled,  one  might  perhaps  say  that  it  is  nof 
a  work  of  Plato's.      I  mean  thnt  it  can  scarcely  be  a  work  of  his 
thoughts,  a  thing  which  he  invented  and  fabricated.     For  if  vrm 
attribute  to  Plato  the  intention  of  defending  Socrates,  we  must 
6rst  of  all  distinguish   the  times  at  which    he  might  have  done 
it>  cither  during  his  process,  or  subsequently,   no  matter  hoM 
soun  or  how  late,  to  his  execution.     Now   in  the  latter  case 
Plato  could  only  have  proposed  to  vindicate  the  principles  and 
sentiments  of  his  friend  und  master.     But  this  vindication  he, 
who  was  so  fond  of  combining  several  ends  in  one  work,  might 
easily  have  coupled  with  his  scientific  views:   and  accordingly- 


Schieiermacher  on  Plato^«  Jpology. 


«7 


we  not  only  fini^  detachtxl  intimations  of  this  kind  scattered 
over  bis  later  writings,  but  we  shall  »oon  lie  introduced  to  An 
important  work,  one  which  cannot  be  denied  to  be  closely 
enough  interwoven  with  his  &cienti6c  speculations,  in  which  a 
collateral  object,  but  one  made  distinctly  prominent,  is  to  place 
the  conduct  and  virtue  of  Socrates  as  an  Athenian  citizen  in  a 
clear  light.  Now  this  is  intelligible  enough  :  but  Plato  could 
scarcely  have  found  any  inducement  at  a  later  period  to  com- 
pose a  work  which  merely  confronts  Socrates  with  his  actual 
accusers.  It  must  have  been  then  during  the  process  that  he 
wrote  this  speech.  But  for  what  purpose?  It  is  manifest  that 
he  could  have  rendered  his  master  no  worse  service,  than  if, 
before  he  had  defended  himself  in  court,  he  had  published  a 
defense  under  his  name,  just  as  if  to  help  the  prosecutors  to 
the  arguments  which  it  would  be  their  business  to  parry  or  to 
elude,  and  to  place  the  defendant  in  the  difficult  situation  of 
being  reduced  either  to  repeat  much  that  bad  been  said  before, 
or  to  say  something  less  forcible.  Hence  the  more  excellent 
and  the  better  suited  to  the  character  of  Socrates  the  defense 
might  be,  the  more  harm  it  would  have  done  to  him.  But 
this  ia  a  supposition  which  will  scarcely  be  maintained. 

After  the  decision  of  the  cause  there  were  two  purposes 
which  Plato  might  have  had,  either  that  of  making  the  course 
of  the  proceedings  more  generally  known  at  the  time,  and  of 
framing  a  memorial  of  them  for  posterity,  or  that  of  setting 
the  di^ereut  parlies  and  their  mode  of  proceeding  in  a  proper 
light.  Now  if  we  inquire  about  the  only  rational  means  to 
the  latter  of  these  ends:  all  will  agree  that  the  speech  should 
have  been  put  into  the  mouth,  not  of  Socrates,  but  of  some 
other  person  defending  him.  For  the  advocate  might  have 
brought  forward  many  things,  which  the  character  of  Socrates 
rendered  improper  for  him  to  urge,  and  might  have  shewn  by 
the  work  that,  if  the  defendant's  cause  liad  only  been  pleaded 
by  a  person  who  had  no  need  to  disdain  resources  which  many 
men  of  honour  did  not  think  beneath  them,  it  would  liave  had 
a  very  different  issue.  Now  if  there  were  any  foundation  for 
an  anecdote,  not  indeed  a  very  probable  one,  which  Diogenes 
Laertius  has  preserved  from  an  insignificant  writer,  Plato's  most 
natural  course  would  have  been,  to  ]iublish  the  s]>eech  which 
he  would  himself  have  mode  on  tlie  same  occasion,  if  he  had  not 


558 


Schiciertndcher  on  Pinto's  Apology. 


beeo  hindered'.  He  would  then  have  had  an  opportunity  of 
exemplifj'ing  tliose  great  precepts  and  expedients  of  rhetoric, 
the  force  of  which  he  had  himself  first  disclosed ;  and  un- 
doubtetlly  he  might  have  applied  them  with  great  truth  and 
art  to  the  charges  concerning  the  new  deities  and  tlie  corruption 
of  youth.  And  so  it  would  have  been  far  better  for  him  to 
have  used  any  other  person's  name  for  the  purpose  of  retorting', 
on  the  accusers  of  Socrates,  and  to  have  spoken  of  his  merits 
in  a  different  tone.  Whereas  in  a  speech  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Socrates  himself,  yet  different  from  that  which  he  really 
delivered,  he  can  have  had  no  other  object  than  to  shew  what 
Socrates  voluntarily  neglected  or  involuntarily  let  slip,  and  how 
his  defense  sliould  have  been  framed  bo  as  to  produce  a  better 
effect.  Now  not  to  mention  that  this  would  have  been  scarcely 
postiible  without  departing  from  the  character  of  Socrates,  it 
,28  evident  that  the  defense  we  now  have  was  not  framed  with 
[this  view.  For  how  coutd  such  a  speech  have  been  followed  by 
the  address  after  the  verdict,  which  implies  an  issue  not  more 
[  favorable  tlian  the  real  one  ?  The  only  supi>osition  then 
that  reniuius  is,  that  this  work  was  designed  simply  to  exhibit 
and  record  in  substance  the  real  proceedings  of  the  case,  for 
those  Athenians  who  were  nut  able  to  be  hearers,  and  for  the 
other  Greeks,  and  |iostcrity.  Now  are  we  to  believe  that,  in 
such  a  case  and  under  such  circumstances,  Plato  was  unable 
to  resist  the  temptation  of  fathering  upon  Socrates  a  work 
of  his  own  art,  which  in  all  but  the  outline  was  jierhaps 
entirely  foreign  to  hini,  like  a  \Kiy  who  has  a  theme  set  him 
to  declame  on.  This  we  cannot  believe,  but  must  presume 
tliat  in  this  case,  where  nothing  of  hts  own  was  wanted,  and 
he  had  entirely  devoted  to  himself  to  his  friend,  especially  bo 
short  a  time  before  or  after  the  death  of  Socrates,  as  ihit*  work 
was  undoubtedly  compowd,  he  considered  his  departing  friend 
too  sacred  to  be  disguised  even  with  the  most  beautiful  of  or- 
naments, and  his  whole  form  as  so  faultless  and  majestic,  that 
it  was  not  right  to  exhibit  it  in  any  dress,  but,  like  the  statue 
'  of  a  god,  naked,  and  wrapt  onlv  in  its  own  beauty.      And  so  in 


I  ^*6ee  Diog.  I.arrt.  ii.  41.  where  it  U  related  thai  Plato  wan  prepared  to  defrnd 
PtqUca,  bill  in  the  Enl  aentencc  of  h»  upeccli  waa  intemipted  hy  the  petulance  of  the 
jnbn,  and  compcllMl  lo  ilcaccnd  ftmn  (he  bfma.  IIiii  this  anecdote  is  loo  little  «ttc»tedl 
and  too  ixni>n)bsblr  in  itaeir  to  build  upon."    ^cliIcicTmiclipr. 


cichmermacher  on  Plato's  Jpology. 


559 


fact  we  find  he  has  done.  For  a  critic  who  should  undertake 
the  task  of  mending  this  speech  would  find  a  great  deal  in  it  to 
alter.  Thus  the  charge  of  misleading  the  young  is  not  re- 
pelled with  arguments  by  any  means  so  cogent  as  it  might 
have  been,  nor  is  sufficient  stress  by  a  great  deal  laid  on 
the  faclj  that  Socrates  had  done  everything  in  the  service 
of  ApoUo,  for  defending  him  agidnst  the  charge  of  disbelief 
of  the  ancient  gods:  and  any  one  with  his  eyes  only  half 
open  may  discover  other  weak  points  of  the  like  kind,  which 
are  not  so  grounded  in  the  character  of  Socrates  that  Plato 
should  have  been  compelk^   to  copy   them. 

Notliing  therefore  is  more  probable,  than  that  in  this  speech 
we  possess  as  faithful  a  transcript  of  Socrates'  real  defense, 
as  PlatoV  practised  memory  enabled  him  to  make,  allowing 
for  the  necessary  difference  between  a  written  speech  and 
one  carelessly  spoken.  But  perhaps  some  one  may  say :  If 
Plato,  supposing  him  to  be  the  author  of  this  work,  did  no- 
thing more  than  record  what  he  had  heard:  what  reason  is 
there  for  insisting  on  thia  fact,  or  how  can  it  be  known, 
that  it  was  he,  and  not  some  other  among  (he  friends  of 
Socrates  who  were  present  at  the  trial?  Such  an  objector, 
if  he  is  faniiUar  with  the  style  of  Plato,  need  only  be  referred 
to  the  whole  aspect  of  the  Apology,  which  distinctly  shews 
that  it  can  have  proceeded  from  no  pen  but  Plato's.  For 
in  it  Socrates  speaks  exactly  as  Plato  makes  him  speak,  a 
manner  in  which,  so  far  as  wc  can  judge  from  all  we  have 
left,  he  was  not  made  lo  speak  by  any  of  his  other  scholars. 
And  this  resemblance  is  so  indisputable,  that  it  may  serve  as  a 
foundation  for  a  remark  of  some  importance.  For  it  suggests 
the  question:  AVhether  certain  peculiarities  of  the  Platonic 
dialogue,  particularly  the  imaginary  questions  and  answers 
inserted  in  a  sentence,  and  the  accumulation  of  several  sen- 
tences compreheuded  under  one,  and  often  expanded  much 
loo  amply  for  this  subordinate  place,  together  with  the  in- 
terruption almost  inevitably  arising  from  this  cause  in  the 
original  structure  of  the  period  :  whether  these  peculiarities, 
seeing  that  we  find  them  so  jiredominant  here,  ought  not 
properly  to  be  referred  to  Socrates.  They  occur  in  Plato 
most  frequently  where  he  is  imitating  Socrates  closest:  but 
nowhere  so  frequently,  and  &<»  little  clear  of  their  accompanving 


560 


Schleiennacher  on  Platan  Apology. 


negligcncies,  as  here  and  in  the  following  dialogue  (the  Crito), 
which  is  probably  of  like  origin.  All  this  togetlier  renders 
it  B  very  natural  conjecture,  that  these  forms  of  speech  were 
originally  copiwl  from  Socrates,  and  are  therefore  to  be  num- 
bered antung  the  »j>ecinienH  uf  the  mimic  art  of  Plato,  who 
endeavoured  in  a  certain  degree  to  copy  the  style  of  thfl 
persons  wliora  he  introduces,  if  it  had  peculiarities  which  j  un- 
titled him  in  so  doing.  And  any  one  who  tries  this  observ- 
ation by  ftpplying  it  to  Plato's  different  works,  especially  kH 
the  order  in  which  I  have  arrange<l  them,  will  find  it  very 
strongly  confirmed  by  the  trial.  The  cause  why  such  an 
imitation  was  not  attempted  by  other  disciples  of  Socrates,  waa 
probably  this  :  that  on  the  one  hand  it  really  required  no  little 
art  to  bend  these  peculiarities  of  a  careless  collocjuiol  style 
under  the  laws  of  written  discourse,  and  to  aniolgauiate  tbem 
with  the  regular  beauty  of  expression,  and  on  the  other  band, 
it  called  for  more  courage  to  meet  the  censure  of  minute  critics 
than  Xenophon  probably  possessed.  But  this  is  not  the  place 
for  entering  further  into  this  question. 

One  circumstance  however  mvist  still  be  noticed,  which 
might  be  alledged  against  the  genuineness  of  this  work,  and 
with  more  plausibility  indeed  than  any  other:  that  it  wants  the 
dress  of  the  dialogue,  in  which  Plato  presents  all  his  other 
works,  and  which  he  has  given  even  to  the  Menexcnus,  though 
in  other  respects  that  like  this  consists  of  nothing  more  than  a 
speech.  Why  therefore  it  may  be  asked,  should  the  Apology, 
which  so  easily  admitted  of  this  ornament,  be  the  only  work  of 
Plato  that  is  destitute  of  it?  Convincing  as  this  sounds,  the 
weight  of  all  other  arguments  is  too  strong  not  to  counter- 
balance this  scruple,  and  we  reply  to  the  objection  as  follows. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  possible  that  the  dialogic  form  had  not  . 
then  become  so  indispensable  with  Plato  as  it  afterwards  was  :  f 
which  may  serve  as  an  answer  for  those  who  are  inclined  to  set 
a  great  value  on  the  dress  of  the  Menexenus;  or  Plato  himself  _ 
distinguished  this  work  from  his  other  writings  too  much  tofl 
think  of  subjecting  it  to  the  same  law.  Besides  it  would  in 
general  be  very  unworthy  of  Plato,  to  consider  the  dialogue, 
even  in  those  works  where  it  is  not  very  intimately  blended  with 
the  main  mass  of  the  composition,  as  nothing  more  than  nn 
ornament  arbitrarily  aj>pended  to  them  :  it  always  has  its  mean* 


Schleiermacher  on  PUUo'a  Apology.  661 

ing,  and  contributes  to  the  conformation  and  effect  of  the 
•whole.  Now  if  this  would  not  have  been  the  case  in  the  pre- 
sent instance,  why  should  Plato  have  brought  it  violently  in? 
Especially  as  in  ^1  likelihood  he  wished  to  hasten  the  publi- 
cation of  this  speech  as  much  as  possible,  and  might  not  think 
it  advisable  at  that  time  to  hazard  a  public  declaration  of  his 
sentiments  on  the  issue  of  the  cause,  which,  if  he  had  clothed 
the  speech  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue,  it  would  have  been  diffi- 
cult to  avoid,  without  rendering  the  form  utterly  empty  and 
unmeaning. 

C.  T. 


SOCRATES,  SCHLEIERMACHER,  AND  DELBRUECK. 


The  two  little  pieces  which  have  just  been  laid  before  the 
reader  were  intended,  in  some  degree,  to  redeem  a  kind  of 
promise  made  in  a  preceding  number  (i.  p.  532.),  where  I  had 
occasion  to  touch  on  some  of  the  subjects  discus&ed  in  them. 
The  first  of  them,  though  small  in  bulk,  perhaps  dciservcs  to  be 
considered  as  one  of  the  most  important  contributions  mode  in 
modern  times  to  the  study  of  Greek  philosophy,  and  I  am  not 
without  hopes  that,  notwithstanding  the  disadvantages  of  its 
foreign  dress,  it  may  be  able  to  make  its  way  to  the  understand- 
ing and  convictions  of  some  of  the  persons  who  take  an  interest 
in  the  subject,  and  that  it  may  in  time  supersede  or  at  least 
materially  modify  the  notion  that  has  hitherto  prevailed,  as  far 
as  I  know  without  any  exception,  in  all  English  works  on  the 
history  of  ancient  philosophvi  with  resj>ect  to  the  character  of 
Socrates  as  a  philosopher.  Independently  of  this  peculiar 
value  of  its  contents  it  would  have  deserved  a  place  here,  if  it 
had  been  only  for  the  sake  of  giving  a  specimen,  which  is  per- 
haps one  of  the  most  characteristic  that  could  be  found  within 
the  same  compass,  of  the  author^s  powers;  and  thug  of  making 
some  amends,  if  not  to  him,  to  ourselves,  for  the  treatment  he 
has  received  in  a  work  which  has  recently  disgraced  our  litera- 
ture— the  so-called  translation  of  Tennemann.  The  ignorance 
and  incapacity  of  the  person  who  has  disguised  that  useful 
compendium  in  an  English  dress,  have  been  sufBciently  exposed 
in  an  article  of  the  Edinburgh  Review,  which  is  only  defective 
in  not  laying  quite  suflicient  stress  on  the  other  prominent  fea- 
ture of  the  work,  its  wilful,  deliberate,  shameless  dishonesty. 
Schlcicrmachcr  is  one  of  the  persons  in  whose  case  the  translator 
has  immolated  justice  and  truth  to  something  which  he  takes, 
or  would  have  taken,  for  religion :  for  this  is  the  name  under 
which  he  covers  frauds  and  forgeries,   such  a*  wc  arc  apt  to 


Socratet^  Srh/eiermachrr,  and  Defhruetik. 


663 


imagine  confined  to  the  worst  school  of  the  worst  time  of  the 
Jesuits. 

The  Introduction  to  the  Apology,  though  interesting  enough 
in  itself,  and  in  some  points  bearing  on  the  former  essay,  woidd 
hardly  have  claimed  a  place  by  its  side,  if  it  had  not  been  con- 
nected with  the  Kubjprt  of  a  little  work  of  Mr  Uelbrueck's, 
which  I  noticed  in  the  article  ab-eady  referred  to,  and  in  a 
manner  wliich  would  have  been  scarcely  fair,  if  I  bad  not  in- 
tended to  return  to  it.  Mr  Delbrueck's  Reflexions  on  Socrates 
turn  entirely  upon  Plato''$  Apology>  and  bis  difiiculties  in  a 
great  measure  arise  out  of  Schleiermncher"'8  view  of  it,  which  he 
adopts  as  his  own.  As  the  reader  now  has  this  view  before 
him,  he  is  fully  prepared  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  it  has  raised  in  Mr  Delbrueck's  mind,  and  which 
certainly  do  not  the  less  deserve  to  be  stated  because  Mr  T).  has 
been  fortunate  enough  to  find  a  solution  of  them,  which,  as  has 
already  been  intimated,  may  not  suit  the  case  of  ordinary  per- 
sons. Mr  1).  opens  the  subject  with  some  reflexions  on  the 
famouR  answer  of  the  Delphic  oracle,  mentioned  in  the  Apology 
«&  exercising  such  an  important  influence  on  the  destiny  of 
Socrates.  He  is  surprised  (p.  14.)  that  this  oracle  and  its  effect 
upon  Socrates  have  l>een  hitherto  so  seldom  made  a  subject  of 
investigation,  and  laments  that  even  among  the  admirers  of 
Socrates  in  our  day,  there  should  be  many  who,  like  some  of 
his  contemponiries  and  his  judges,  take  the  oracle  for  a  fiction, 
and  his  appeal  to  it  for  irony.  With  as  much  reason,  Mr  D. 
thinks,  might  Thomas  a  Kempis,  or  Pascal,  or  Fenelon,  be  sus- 
pected of  an  oflcctation  of  humility,  when  they  confirm  tbcb" 
convictions  on  sacred  siibjects  by  quotations  from  the  Bible. 
Like  them,  Socrates  was  in  the  best  *er3e  cf  the  word  a  Mystic 
(p.  18.):  and  the  answers  of  the  Ilelphic  oracle  exercised  an 
influence  on  the  weal  and  woe  of  Greece,  similar  to  that  which 
the  Bible  exerts  on  the  destinies  and  the  proceedings  of  Christ- 
endom (p.  Sfi).  The  death  of  Socrete.,  -.vaa  the  mo«t  important 
event  in  his  history  :  with  it  began  the  happier  life  which  he 
has  ever  since  lived  in  the  memory  of  mankind  (p.  41).  But 
this  was  only  the  close  of  a  series  of  phenomena  which  had  their 
origin  in  the  answer  of  the  Delphic  oracle;  so  that  again  Mr  D. 
(cannot  contain  his  surprise,  that  this  answer  shmdd  have 
attracted  so  little  attention  (p.  42).  It  may  indeed  be  thought 
Vol  II.  No.  ii.  4  C 


#64 


SacraUif  ScfUeUmuuher^  and  Deibrueck. 


that  the  fault  lies  in  some  rocaKurc  with  Socrates  himself,  smdii 

that  he  did  not  act  well  in  withholding  the  knowledge  of  thei 

oracle  frou  his  contemporaries  until  be  had  occasion  to  publish 

it  at  his  trial.     His  silence  however  was  necessary  to  prevent 

expectations  which  the  disclosure  of  it  might  have  raiik'd,  and 

[  which  he,  who  coidd  only  detect  error  without  importing  wia-  | 

^om,  would  not  have  l>een  able  to  satisfy.     Unfortunately  the 

Consequence  was,  that  when  at  last  he  revealed  the  secret  to  hia 

[judges,  he  was  not  believed,  and  instead  of  listening  to  hie  wit- 

L  Desses  of  the  fact,  or  sending  an  embassy  to  Delphi  to  as<-ertain 

ktbe  truth,  they  treated  his  appeal  to  the  God  as  an  ironical 

But  tbotimc  soon  came  when  they  were  punished  for^ 

Ctheir  profane  incredulity,  by  the  stings  of  remorse,  and  in  bitter  | 

grief  applied   the  verses  of   Kuripides  which  reproached  the 

I  Greeks  for  the  murder  of  Palamedes,  to  their  own  deed-     But 

[  ttill  more  sensibly  is  the  same  misunderstanding;  avenged  at  this 

day,  inasmuch  as  those  who  take  the  main  thought  on  which 

)ithe  whole  apology  turns  for  irony,  deprive  not  only  this  speech, 

[but  the  life  of  Socrates,  of  all  its  sublimity,  and  its  edifying 

^ifirtue.     No  one  can  sincerely  admire,  and  cordially  love,  both 

^the  life  of  the  sage,  and  this  vindication  of  it,  who  does  not  per- 

loeive  in  the  words  of  Socrates  the  unfeigned  language  of  piouft 

I  anthusiasra  (p.  46). 

But  Mr  D.  had  at  the  outset  (p.  2.)  intimated  that  there 

>wcre  three  passages  in  the  Apology  which  seemed  to  him  to 

1  form  an  exception  to  its  general  character,  and  to  tli^ee  he  now 

[proceeds  to  direct  our  attention.     It  is  not  without  a  kind  of 

I  reluctance  and  great  diffidence,  that  he  ventures  to  express  hia 

L  opinion  of  thvm ;  for  as  Schleiermacher  only  remarks  in  general 

[terms,  that  there  are  weak  points  in  the  sp<.>cch,  which  any  one 

nay  easily  discover,  if  he  only  half  opens  bis  eyes,  Mr  D-  fears 

^tiiat  he  may  have  been  the  first  person  who  has  felt  the  ]>as&ages 

in  question  to  be  not  merely  weak,  but  oflensive,  and  who  bos 

marked  them  as  utterly  unworthy  of  Socrates,    Should  this  be 

the  case,  his  modesty  leads  him  to  apprehend,  that  he  ha»  either 

mistaken  the  sense  and  spirit  of  the  whole  work,  or  has  mia- 

understood  these  parts  of  it;  if  there  is  any  other  aiteroative  Ur 

I  does  not  know  how  to  describe  it. 

The  first  of  the  offensive  passages  is  the  plea  which  Socrates 
L«eu  up  against  the  «bsu;g£  of  corrupting  the  young,  iu  the  adr 


SocrateSy  ScM^ermachery  and  Dtlbrueck. 


565 


mission  which  he  extorts  from  Mdetus,  that  bad  men  ore  hurt- 
ful to  their  neighbours,  good  men  useful  to  them:  from  which 
he  draws  the  conclusion,  that  if  he  has  made  men  worse,  it  must 
have  lK.*en  involuntarily,  and  through  ignorance,  which  called 
not  for  pu1>lin  punishment,  but  for  private  admonition,  and  in- 
struction. This  plea  Mr  D.  considers  as  a  piece  of  sophistry, 
false  iu  substance,  and  only  coloured  by  the  ambiguity  of  the 
Greek  word  eKwv,  which  may  denote  the  direction  of  the  will  to 
an  object,  either  as  a  mean,  or  as  an  end.  In  the  latter  sense 
of  the  word  Socrates,  Mr  D.  thinks,  might  truly  say,  that  he 
could  not  have  corrupted  the  young,  eicwF,  for  the  sake  of 
spoiling  them  without  any  ulterior  object :  but  then,  this  would 
equally  serve  as  a  defense  for  the  most  shameless  of  the  S<v 
phists,  who  most  deliberately  instilled  the  most  mischievous 
doctrines  into  the  minds  of  their  hearers.  It  was  only  in  tb« 
other  sense  of  the  word,  in  which  it  signifies  no  more  than  con- 
sciously, or  wittingly,  that  it  could  be  properly  used  to  meet 
the  charge  of  Meletus;  but  in  this  sense  the  general  proposition, 
that  no  one  makes  men  worse,  ckiov-,  with  a  distinct  conscious- 
ness of  doing  so,  is  glaringly  false,  and  therefore  can  avail 
Socrates  nothing.  What  then,  Mr  D.  asks,  are  we  to  suppose? 
That  Socrates  perceived  the  ambiguity  of  the  word,  but  know* 
ingly  concealed  it,  in  order  to  jierplex  his  adversaries,  and  de- 
ceive his  judges?  Or,  that  he  deceived  himself  with  a  fallacy 
which  he  mistook  for  a  sound  argument?  In  the  former  case 
we  must  rank  him  among  the  Sophists,  with  whom  he  was 
his  whole  life  through  in  conflict:  in  the  latter  we  should  have 
to  deplore,  that  Socrates,  the  sage  who  had  applied  all  his 
thoughts  and  faculties  to  the  investigation  of  moral  and  political 
truth,  and  who  was  supposed,  under  the  divine  assistance,  to 
have  succeeded  in  clearing  his  mind  from  delusion  and  prejudice 
on  these  subjects,  should  have  made  so  little  progress  as  to  be 
unable  to  distinguish  between  two  notions  so  different  as  those 
just  mentioned,  and  should  thus,  on  the  point  of  death,  liave 
been  led  to  make  assertions  which  belied  the  whole  tenor  of  his 
former  life.  In  either  case,  the  passage  discussed  is  not  merely 
weak,  but  scandalous,  offensive,  and  unworthy  of  Socrates 
(p.  56). 

All  these  qualities  Mr  D.  finds  unitetl,  if  possible,  in  a  still 
greater  degree,  in  another  passage.     This  is  the  reply  which 


566 


SocrcUen^  Schleiermucher^  and   Oethrueck. 


Socrates  makes  Ui  the  charge  of  not  acknowlL-dging  the  deities , 
acknowledged  by  the  state,  but  Bome  new  supia-uatural  power*  J 
or  agencies.     Socrates  is  represented  in  the  Apology  as  first 
complaining  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  charge,  and  asking  Melc- 
tuB,  whether  he  means  to  accuse  him  of  believing  in  gods  differ-  ! 
ent  from  those  of  the  state,  or  of  absolute  atheism :  and  Meletus 
is  made  to  say  that  he  charges  him  with  not  believing  in  any 
gods  whatever.     To  re[>el  this  charge  Socrates,  in  the  passage 
of  which  Mr  D.  complains,  endeavours  to  shew,  that  the  very 
word  which  Meletus  has  used  in  his  indictment,  to  describe  the 
new  objects  of  belief,  which  Socrates  has  substituted  for  those 
■  Teoognised  by  the  state»  (^atfiovta)  implies  a  contradiction  of  thci 
[charge.      For  one  who  holds  the  existence  of  tilings  pertaining  j 
[to  daemons  (^tuovia),  must  believe  in  the  beings  to  whom  theyj 
I  pertain  {caifioves)  ■,  and   Mclctiis  is  brought  to  admit  tliat  all! 
[  beings  of  this  class  ore  either  gods,  or  the  offspring  of  gods,  i 
I  whence  it  follows  that  no  one  who  acknowledges  their  existeacej 
can  deny  that  of  the  gods.     This  argument;,  Mr  I),  conceives,] 
contains  a  complication  of  fallacies.     In  the  first  place  a  belieCJ 
I  in  the  existence  of  divine  things  does  not  imply  belief  in  tl 
existence  of  any  deity:  there  is  no  analogy  l>etween  the  mutual] 
relation  of  the  terms  man  and  human,  nnd  the  terms  deity  and 
^vine;  for  experience  informs  us,  that  both  in  indi^'iduals  and 
'in  communities  the  notion  of  a  something  divine  precedes  and. 
gives  birth  to  that  of  a  dfity;  and  in  fact  the  great  glory  ofl 
Socrates  consisted  in  this :   that  he  was  able  to  distinguish  that 
which  belonged  to  the  former  notion  in  the  religion  of  his  coun- 
trymen, its  sacred  and  unchangeable  foundation,  which  is  ever- 
lastingly grounded  in  the  nature  of  man,  from  the  light  and 
worthless    superstructure   of    legends   and    ceremonies,    which 
chance,    ignorance,    and    superstition,  had  grounded  upon   it. 
This  pure  faith,  Mr  D.  thinks,  it  would  have  become  Socrates 
to  confess  before  his  judges.     He  might  have  admitted  that  he 
did  not  in  all  points  agree  with  the  poets,  tlie  priests,  and  the 
soothsayers,  with  respect  to  divine  things:  but  he  might  at  the 
same  time  have  maintained  thai  his  creed,  insteiuj  of  being  new^ 
was  eternal  as  deity  itself,  atul  was  the  prima>val  faith  revealed' 
to  every  member  of  the  human  race,   who  would  listen  to  the 
voice  of  bis  own  heart;   that  it  was  not  inconsistent  with  thei 
reUgious  institutions  of  his  country,  which  he  had  always  re 


Socrates,  Schleiermncher,  and  Dethruerk. 


567 


vered,  with  a  piety  which  was  incontestahly  provcU  by  the 
obedience  he  had  shown  to  to  the  Delphic  god  (p.  (i5). 

But,  independent  of  the  fallacy  just  exposed,  there  is  an- 
other in  this  argument  so  glaring  that  Mr  D.  can  scarcely 
believe  Socrates  to  have  l>cen  in  earnest:  for,  in  Meletus' 
charge,  the  word  on  wiiich  Stn^rales  plays  iias  not  the  meaning 
which  he  induces  Meletiis  to  assign  to  it.  In  many  passages 
of  Houier,  with  which  Socrates  was  perfectly  familiar,  it  means 
nothing  more  than  Htiporhunian  in  general :  the  signification 
to  which  Socrates  confines  it  was  of  later  origin,  and  arose 
after  a  new  class  of  beings  hatl  been  distinguished  fnim  the 
gods  under  the  name  of  daemons:  and  the  earlier  sense,  to 
which  the  argument  of  Socrates  does  not  apply,  is  manifestly 
that  which  Meletus  really  intended,  though  he  let  himself  l>e 
surprised  into  an  admission  whicl\  overturned  his  charge.  But 
an  impartial  hearer  might  justly  have  censured  Socrates  for 
descending  to  such  a  paltry  shift,  and  relying  upon  his  advcr* 
8ary''s  weakness  and  shortsightedness,  instead  of  meeting  the 
charge  with  a  manlv  avowal,  and  a  philos«>phical  explanation, 
such  as  Mr  D.  would  have  put  into  his  mouth.  But  we  must 
pass  over  the  many  severe  things  which  the  court  might  have 
raid,  if  it  had  been  usual  so  to  interrupt  the  prisoner''s  defense 
(p.  6S),  that  we  may  proceed  to  the  third  of  the  obnoxious 
passages,  which  scandalises  Mr  D.  as  much  as  either  of  the 
fonner. 

It  is  contained  in  the  concluding  address,  which  follows 
the  final  sentence.  Socrates  endeavours  to  calm  the  regret 
which  thotie  who  had  voted  in  his  favour  might  feel  at  the 
issue  of  the  trial,  by  some  reflexions  on  the  nature  of  death 
and  the  prospects  of  a  future  state.  Death  is  either  a  mere 
privation  of  sense,  or  it  is  a  transfer  of  the  soul  from  one 
place  to  another.  On  the  former  of  these  suppositions  it 
resembles  a  dreamlt-ss  sleep,  and  so  considered  it  would  be 
a  great  gain  to  man.  For  if  any  one  were  to  compare  a  night 
spent  in  such  a  sleep,  with  all  the  other  nights  or  days  of 
his  life,  and  were  to  consider  how  many  among  them  he 
has  spent  better  or  more  pleasantly  than  this  night,  the  num- 
ber would  bear  a  very  small  proportion  to  the  rest,  even  if 
it  were  not  a  private  man,  but  the  Great  King  himself,  who 
instituted   the   inquiry.     So    that   as  the  eternity    after  death 


568 


Socrates,  SrhiMee^iMe^^,  and  Dvthirueck. 


would    be   no  more  than   one   such   night,    most   men    vould 
have  reason  to  desire  it.     On  this  view  of  the  matter  Mr  D. 
remarks,  that  for  his  own  port  he  can  see  nothing  desirable 
in   a   dreamless   sleep,    except    ua   it    refreshes   the  body    and 
mind,  and  prepart^  tliem  fur  new  exertions;   but   that   if  an 
everlasting  sleep  were  so  great  a  good  as  Socrates  represents, 
jt  would  follow    that  men  had  reason  to  prefer  darkness   to 
light,  privation  to  existence,   nothing  to  somethings    and  the 
gloomy  song  of  the  Chorus,  who  declare,  that  for  man  never 
to  have  been  bom  is  the  first  of  blessings,   the  next,   whic 
leaves  all  others  far  behind,  to  return  as  quickly  as  he  may' 
to  the  night  from  whicii  he  sprung,  ((£d.  Col.  1335.)  would 
become   a  philosophical    truth.      But   dark  as   was   the   shadi 
thrown  over  all  the  brilliant  variety  of  Grecian  life,  by   th^ 
LToid   in  the  prospects  of  futurity,   which  was  the  source   of 
BO  manv  lamentations  over  the  lot  of  mortals,   Sophocles  would  >J 
never  have  uttered  in   his  own  person  nuch  a    sentiment    aA 
fae  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  Chorus,  and  would  only  have 
defended  it   on   the  ground  of  the  dramatic   situation.      And., 
as  in   Socrates  the  sentiment  itself  is  unnatural  and   false,    soj 
the  mention  of  the  Great  King  is  unworthy  of  a  philosopher;'] 
since  it  implies  that  it   in  outward  prosperity   that  gives  Ufei 
its   value.     If  for   the    Great   King    we   substitute  the  Wiae 
[Man,  it   will  be  impossible   to   repeat  the    assertion  without 
[  blushing  (p.  79)- 

The  contemplation  of  these  passages   had  seriously   dis- 
turbed Mr  D.^s  peace  of   mind,  even  while  he  continued  to 
regard    the    Apology    as    a    wurk    of    Plato^s,     and    the    main 
thought,    the    apiwal    to   the  oracle,   as   ironical.     But    when 
[•he   began  to  perceive   its    real   import,  and   recognised  io   it 
[the  language  of  pious  enthusiasm,    and  was   convinced    that 
lihe  speech  expressed  the  very  mind  of  Socrates,  fais  uneasiness 
arose  to  a  painful  degree  of  intensity.     He  saw  himself  reduced 
I  to  the  alternative,  of  either  giving  up  his  faith  in  the  character 
Lof  Socrates,  or   else  assuming  that   the  offensive  pa.ssagcs  do 
I  not  convey  his  thoughts,  but  were  interpolated  bv  Plato.      In 
support  of  the  latter  conjecture,  he  adduces  the  passages  in 
kXenophoirs  Apology  which  bear  on  the  same  |K)ints;  and  in 
hese  he  observes  there  is  no  trace  of  dissimulation,  false  subtilty, 
or  exaggeration,  so  that  one  is  inclined  to  believe  ihat  every- 


SocfitUt^  Schieiermachery  and  Delbrueck. 


569 


thing  whidi  savours  of  these  qualities  in  Plato's  work  ought  to 
be  rejected  as  spurious.  Then  indeed  chcqucfition  in  shifted  to  a 
different  ground,  and  it  is  Plato,  whom  his  st^'lc  betrays  as  the 
author  of  the  wliole  speech,  that  must  answer  for  having  inserted 
these  offeusivt;  partu,  in  which  he  must  at  his  own  discretion 
have  filled  up  some  gaps,  which  Socrates,  who  &puke  unprepared, 
left  in  his  argument.  As  Plato  cannot  now  defend  himself 
Mr  D  calls  up  an  advocate  fur  him',  who  however  only  brings 
his  client  into  fresh  difficulties,  for  which  he  ia  soundly  rated  by 
Mr  D.  According  to  Xenophon,  whom  Mr  D.  lielieves  to  be  the 
author  of  the  Apology  which  bears  his  naiue,  Socrates  was 
really  desirous  of  escaping  from  life  hy  the  quiet  and  easy 
death  which  the  law  inflicted  as  the  punishment  of  his  imputed 
offense.  In  this  feeling  Xenophon  6nds  a  natural  explanation 
of  the  lof^y  tone  he  maintained  at  his  trial,  which  might  other- 
wise appear  rather  foolish  than  admirable  (Xenopli.  A(k>1.  1). 
But  as  if  this  had  been  the  case  Socrates  would  have  bceu  guilty 
of  mean  hypocrisy*  in  concealing  bis  real  wislies,  and  afiecting 
to  be  heroically  unconcerned  at  the  thought  of  parting  with 
life,  when  in  fact  he  was  weary  of  il;  Plato,  if  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  tlie  secret  motives  of  Socrates,  would  have  prac- 
tised a  wilful  fraud  upon  posterity,  in  suppressing  them,  and 
attributing  to  magnuiiimity  what  was  in  fact  an  effect  of  weak- 
ness. And  though  the  advocate  assigned  to  Plato  by  Mr  D. 
may  have  pleaded  his  cause  injudiciously,  there  6eem»  but  little 
hope  that  one  of  even  greater  skill  would  succeed  in  sliewing, 
that  the  same  passages  which,  if  they  are  supposed  to  be  the 
real  language  of  Socrates,  ore  a  grievous  blot  upou  his  character, 
would  nut  aflect  Plato's  in  nearly  the  same  degree,  if  be  invented 
them.  So  that  still  it  seems  impusaible  la  save  the  honour  of 
tile  master,  except  at  the  expense  of  Ins  most  illustrious  scholar. 
Aud  if  the  offense  itself  is  nut  lessened  by  being  shifted  fruui 
Socrates,  there  is  evidently  no  reasiHi  for  transferring  it  to  Plato. 
Such  appears  to  have  been  the  result  to  which  Mr  D.  was  led 
in  the  first  instance  by  these  reflexions ;  for  they  left  him  for 
some  time  a  prey  to  a  deep  melancholy,  which,  as  he  informs 
us,  arose  from  the  thought :  Who  can  rely  upon  liimself,  or  on 


In  Bpcaking  of  Mr  D  >  work  (t.  p.  bti)  I  mcMit  (n  allude  to  ihh  passgti  where, 
c.  1  >ikTc  InAdvenenily  writlm  ill*  tunie  of  Vomica  for  Plaio. 


570 


Socrateg,   Scfiieiermaehert  and  Deihnieck. 


1 


any  one  eltte,   if  he  no  longer  trusts  in  the  wisdom  and  ^Sr 
of  Socrates?  (p.  10*). 

Happily  fur  Mr  D.,  his  distress  has  been  long  relieved,  ; 
hh  pence  restoretl   so   effectually,   that  il   seems  it  will  be 
own  fault  if  he  ever  relapses  into  his  former  disquietude  (p.  lOl 
But  the  mode  in  which  his  trouble  was  allayed,  and  a  new  vi* 
of  the  subject  presented  to  his  mind,  in  which  all  his  difficult 
vanished,  it  would  be  presumptuous  in  any  one  else  to  attet 
rdatiag,  since  he  himself  considers  it  as  mysterious  (p.  IC 
nor  would  it  be  of  much   use  to  do  so,    since  the  same  effect 
can  never  be  again  produced  in  the  same  manner.      In  gener 
the   readet^s  curiosity  may  be  satisHed  with  learning,  that 
was  the  result  of  an   interchange  of  confessions  between  Mr 
and  a  person  whom  lie   saw  but  once  in   his   life  and   whose 
name  he  never  knew,  but  who  seem  to  have  succeeded  better 
than  any  one  else  has  ever  done,  in  making  him  a  convert  to  )iis 
own  opinions.      A  more  imj>ortaiit  question,  which  the  read<ar 
will  be  tempted  to  ask,  is,  what  these  opinions  were,  and  whM 
was  that  new,  consolatory,  and  tranquilli^fing  view,  which  the 
mysterious  stranger  imparted,  and  which  we  may  hope  Mr  1). 
still  holds  fast.     Unfortunately  it  would  be  still  more  difficult 
to  satisfy  this  curiosity,  natural  us  it  h,   without  rashly  intru- 
ding upon  secrets  which  Mr  D.  has  thought  fit  to  keep  to  him- 
self, or  has  disclosed  only  by  some  broken  hints,  which  at  the 
utmost  afford  room  only  for  general  and   uncertain  conjectures. 
If  there  is  any  inference  which  one    might  venture  to  draw, 
with  some  degree  of  confideuve,  from  the  narrative,  it  is  this : 
that  whercHs   at   the   beginning  of   the   conference  Mr  D.  was 
painfully  perplexetl  through  his  vcnerntion  for  Socrates,  and 
his  reluctance  to  admit  any  opinion  which  was  at  roriance  wttfl 
that  feeling,  he  has  since  been  enabled  to  receive  such  opinion*^ 
with  indifference,  because  his  faith  now  rests  on  a  better  and 
surer  ground   than    the  character   of   Socrates,    or  Plato,    oil 
Xenophon  (p.  137). 

Heartily  as  Mr  D.'s  personal  friends  muBt  rejoice,  if  this  is 
the  case,  in  so  happy  a  tenninatiou  of  his  inward  struggles, 
it  is  evidently  one  with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do  in  ^X-^ 
amining  a  question  which  affects   the  character  of  Socrates  o^ 
his  disciples,  for  it  must  always  be  presumed  that  we  enter 
upon   such  inquiries  in   a   stale  of  mind   which   enables  us 


Socrates,  Schleter mocker,  and  Delhrueck. 


571 


weigh  the  evidence  calmly,  and  to  decide  impartially.  Nor 
wouhl  it  perhaps  indicate  the  spirit  bent  fitted  for  conducting 
such  investigntiuM»»  that  we  felt  the  less  intcreat  in  them  be- 
cause our  personal  comfort  was  not  affected  by  the  issue.  Those 
l!»[?rcfijrc  who  come  to  the  same  conclusion  with  Mr  D.  on  the 
<iuestinns  which  he  raises  with  respect  to  t!ie  Apology,  may  pos- 
sibly be  edified  l>y  his  narrative;  but  others  who  would  have 
no  need  of  such  consolation  may  still  take  a  great  interest  in 
the  questions  themselves.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  they 
have  here  lieen  stated  at  some  length. 

The  reluctant  diffidence  with  which,  as  we  have  seen,  Mr  D. 
])ropounds  these  questions,  under  the  impression  that  he  was 
the  first  person  to  whom  they  had  occurred,  was  probably 
founded  on  a  mistake.  For  two  or  three  years  before  his  book 
was  published,  bimilar  objections  to  tbe  same  parts  of  the  Ayto- 
logy  had  been  brought  forward,  in  a  vcrv  different  manner 
indeed,  and  with  a  different  object,  by  another  German  author. 
This  was  Mr  Ast,  who  in  ISI6  published  a  work  on  Plato''s  life 
and  writings",  which  obtained  considerable  celebrity.  It  had 
probably  not  fallen  in  Mr  D.'s  way  in  November  I8I8,  when 
he  sent  hia  little  treatise  to  the  press,  as  he  has  not  mentioned 
it.  He  however  informs  tbe  reader  in  liis  preface,  that  he  had 
written  the  work  four  years  before;  but  having  just  resumeil 
bis  functions  of  profeftSt>r  at  Bonn,  he  was  induced  to  send  it 
into  the  world,  by  way  of  greeting  to  distant  friends. 

It  is  always  instructive  to  compare  the  opinions  of  two 
persons  who  have,  independently  of  each  other,  turned  their 
thoughts,  nearly  at  tiie  same  time,  to  the  same  subject :  and  as 
it  is  not  so  much  Mr  Delbrueck's  work  as  the  Apology  itself  in 
which  we  are  interested,  it  will  be  very  proper  to  consider  Mr 
Ast's  view  of  it.  With  the  rest  of  his  book  we  are  not  at 
present  concerned.  But  yet  it  is  fit  that  the  reader  should  be 
apprised,  that  Mr  Ast  has  distinguished  himself  by  the  bold- 
ness with  which  he  has  attacked  several  of  Plato's  most  cele- 
brated works.  Among  the  whole  number  only  fourteen  have 
escaped  the  stroke  of  hia  criticifom;  and  in  the  comlemncd  list, 
among  a  crowd  of  the  smaller  dialogues,  stand  the  Laws  and 
the  Apology,  separated  however  by  a  very  wide  interval,  wliich 


»  PUton'x  J/cbcn  nml  Schriften:  voii  Freilrricli  A«. 

Vol.  II.  No.  (I.  \U 


572 


SocrattMt  Schieicrmachert  and  Dulhrueck. 


I 


is  designeil,  as  the  author  expressly  informs  us  (p.  379* 
mark  the  inferior  degree  in  which  the  latter  work  approxiuiafi 
to  the  genius  of  Plato.  It  must  be  addc<l  that  Mr  Ast*» 
tempt  has  not  been  favorably  received  by  the  most  eminent 
German  scholars.  One  of  the  most  celebrated  of  them,  Fredei^ 
Thiersch,  in  a  review  of  the  book  which  appeared  in  the  irt«nfl 
Jahrhuec/ui'  for  1818,  the  year  before  Mr  Delbrueck  publishwl 
his  reflexions,  desciibes  the  general  character  of  Mr  Ast's  crijt^ 
cism  in  a  passage  which  is  worth  quoting.  "  Scblcicrmach^J 
whose  works  first  introduced  a  right  understanding  of  Plato  s 
peculiar  turn  aud  method,  had  divided  Plato'^s  dialogues  into 
two  classes:  greater  works  of  the  first  rank,  the  geuuiuenese  of 
which  is  ascerloinetl  by  internal  evidence  aud  by  Aristotle's 
quotations  and  remarks,  and  secondary  works,  some  of  whii 
prepare  the  way  for  those  of  the  first  rank,  or  supply  thi 
omissions,  while  others  arose  from  accidental  occasions.  Da 
Mr  Ast  has  not  only  condemned  as  spurious  all  works  of 
latter  class  without  exception,  but  also  several  of 
which  in  Schleiermacher's  arrangement  had  been  described  . 
necessary  parts  of  Plato's  doctrine.  Now  wliile  his  great 
decesBor  found  much  that  was  praiBeworthy  in  the  contents 
form  of  the  subordinate  dialogues,  our  author  has  undertak 
the  unenviable  task  of  snying  all  imagiiuibic  ill  of  them;  so 
that  any  one  who  should  read  his  harsli  and  unsparing  criticisiM 
without  l}eing  acquainted  with  the  work  he  assails,  would  W 
many  cases  be  extremely  surpri.sed,  how  it  should  have  been 
possible  for  any  man  of  common  intcUigencc  to  attribute 
ductions  so  very  wretchetl  to  any  writer  of  celebrilv,  aud  al 
all  to  Plato." 

Oti  the  other  hand  candour  requires  us  to  add,  that 
Mr  Ast  is  very  generally  acknowledged  to  be  a  man  of  learr>- 
ing,  abilities,  and  independent  thought;  and  certainly  however 
he  may  be  diargeable  with  rubhnesd  and  intemjx>rQncc  in  his 
criticism,  he  scarcely  deserved  such  humiliation  as  the  praise 
of  Weisse,  who  has  applauded  him  for  his  worst  deeds,  in 
a  passage  which,  if  the  context  did  not  prove  ic  to 
seriously  absurd  paradox,  would  have  been  taken  for  a  luc 
crously  satirical  caricature\ 

'  It  oeeun  in  a  book  which,  with  tnanf  intllcfttions  of  a  rigorous  mind,  coati 
iDOTdinate  quaatjtjr  of  cxtrtvaguit  ronceila,  itelivcml  with  the  ilofrm»ti»m  natural  t 


SocrnUSf  SehJeiattmrfter,  ttnd  Delhnieck. 


573 


'  Against  the  Apology,  it  ftccms,  Mr  Ast  had  long  harboureii 
a  peculiar  de^ee  of  jMiIemical  bitterness,  which  has  vented 
itself  in  lemis  of  the  Imrshest  censure  in  the  work  we  are  sj>cak- 
ing  of.  Yet  the  Ajiology  and  its  author  have  been  gainers  by 
thirt  virulence;  for  it  has  drawn  forth  a  defense  of  them  from 
Thiersch  in  the  obovementioned  review,  which  much  more  than 
compensates  for  any  injury  they  can  have  received  from  Mr 
Asi's  Attack.  Mr  Ast''s  mode  of  proceetling  exhibits  a  striking 
contrast  with  Mr  Delbrueck's  diffidence.  While  the  latter  was 
approaching  the  Apology  with  modest  reverence,  and  scarcely 
venturetl  to  give  utterance  to  the  unfavorable  iiipreKsion  which 
Home  partK  of  it  mude  upon  his  mind,  fi'aring  to  stand  nlonc  in 
his  disapprobation  of  them,  Mr  Ast  wag  actnallv  engagetl  in 
making  an  impetuous  assault  \i\ton  the  whole,  to  tear  it  down, 
without  exception  or  reserve,  from  the  place  which  it  has  (kcu- 
pied  for  ages  in  the  estimation  of  ail  men  whose  opinions  oit 
such  matters  are  worth  knowing*.  He  considers  it  as  a  forgery, 
which  by  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  its  contents,  betrays  itself 
as  the  production  of  a  mere  rhetorician,  who  has  failed  most 
signally  both  in  his  attempt  to  imitate  the  style  of  Plato,  and 
to  represent  the  character  of  Socrates. 

The  first  is  a  funitnnaental  objection,  which,  if  it  liad  any 
weight,  would  supersede  the  necessity  of  any  other.  Mr  Ast 
contends,  that  a  set  speech,  like  the  Ajwlogy,  was  utterly  in- 
consistent with  the  character  of  Socrates,  who  disdained  all 
rhetorical  arts,  and  with  the  principles  of  Plato,  who  disap- 
proveil  of  them.      In  confinnation  of  this  remark  he  appeals  to 


|i«T«on  who  feeli  th»i  he  it  tint  likely  to  mxke  my  convert!  hjr  wifunieat  { Ueber  dna 
.Mtuiliuiri  tics  IlaiiicT,  p.  2^4  full).  His  praise  oT  Mt  Ast'i  ugsdty,  u  manifested  in 
the  rcjcctiou  of  the  Imici,  U  qualified  with  wonder  ki  his  Lnfatuation,  in  sdll  retaining 
the  Timatiu  and  the  i'ritiojt  in  thr  lint  of  PUIo'h  wtirlcM. 

*  Ii(r  Ast  haa  produced,  in  favour  of  his  own  opinion,  ilic  solitary  judgement  of 
C'-a»»lu»  Severm,  who  pronounced  the  .ifu^utjy  unnurthy  both  of  Flato  and  Socrales 
(Sencc.  E;iLccrpl.  C-ontruv.  111.  j).  !IU7.  Hip.):  cln!|iicntii«tuii  viri  Platonia  otatto,  quK 
pro  fVicnile  scripta  cut,  ncr  patrono  ncc  rco  dlfina  est.  Thiernch  justly  obierrrs  that 
such  a  paitiMn  nmst  do  more  hurt  than  ffOoA  10  Mr  A«*«  cause,  forthut  is  the  aame 
(Jaosius  whote  incurable  greediness  of  defaiimiion  is  branded  by  TaciiuR  (Ann.  1.  72. 
IV.  21),  Bi)d  whose  natural  rhetorical  talent  wiw  rendered  iwwerless  by  ihe  unipfovemable 
violence  of  hia  malevolent  paanion^t  (T>c  CaiiM.  Cotr.  Kloqu.  c.  2fi).  The  opinion  of 
BUCh  ■  XOMH  on  such  a  subject  niiglit  very  naturally  be  opposed  10  thai  of  Cicero  (Tuac. 
Qo.  t.  42.);  and  ^lonuiftiio,  who  (CuaJs.  iti.  c.  13.)  exprcnea  the  vOWl  which  ilii- 
.tpotoyti  prnduccK  an  a  mind  open  10  iu  impressions,  in  very  lively  tom*.  Sec  par- 
ttcolftfly  p.  217  and  SIfl  of  Tom.   iv.  Pidoi'*  small  ediiioti. 


574 


Socrates^  Schleiermacherf  and  DelOrueek. 


I 


the  Gorgias  (p.  .521.),  where  indeed  tlie  rhetoric,  which  works 
by  flattery  and  falsehood,  is  condemned  os  unworthy  of  a  wise 
nian.     But  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  this  that  Socrates  would 
have  scrupled  to  defend  himself  in  a  continuous  speech  ;   any 
more  than  from  the  anecdote,  to  wtiich  we  are  likewise  referred, 
that  he  refused  to  avail  himself  of  an  oration  comjxwed  for  him 
by  Lysias.      It  was  not  its  form  but  its  contents  that  he  is  said 
to  have  thouglit   degrading  to  him.     All  therefore  must   st 
depend  on  the  character  of  the  Ajwlogy,  and  on  the  degree 
which  it  answers  to  Xeuophoifs  description  of  the  defense  wbt 
Socrates  really  niacL',  as  singular!}'  distinguished  by  its  truth, 
frankness,  and  justice.  (Mem,  iv.  8.  I.)    Mr  Ast  indeed  thinks 
it  clear,  that  Socrates  did  not  observe  the  ordinary  forms  of 
public  speeches,  but  interrupted,  the  continuity  of  his  adilress  to- 
the  court,  by  iuterrugattug  Ins  accusers.     Since  however  thisfl 
exactly  what  wc  Hnd  him  doing  in  the  Apology,  and  it  is  iin? 
possible  to  estimate  the  exact  proportion  between  the  dialojg^e 
and  the  other  part  of  his  defense,  this  argument  rather  weighs 
in  favour  of  the  controverted  work  than  against  it.     For  that 
his  whole  defense  sliould  have  consisted  of  a  series  of  question: 
is  incredible  in  itself,  and  is  more  than  Mr  Ast  himself  ventui 
to  assert ;  though  he  has  not  observed  that  nothing  short  of  th^ 
is  required  for  his  inference.     IndetKl  throughout  the  whole  of 
his  remarks  on   thi^^  subject  he  seems  not  sulTlciently  to  bald 
borne   in    niind,    that   wc   have   to  consider  not  merely   whaP 
Socrates  preferred  and  approved  of,  but  what  the  situation  iu 
which  he  was  placed  enabled  liiin  to  do.     It  is  certainly  ino^ 
probable  that  if  IMcletns  had  brought  the  same  charge  again* 
him  in  a  private  circle,  where  he  was  left  to  act  at  his  own  dis- 
cretion, he  would  have  declined  to  give  any  direct  reply,  nnM 
would  Iiave  brought  the  question  to  an  issue  entirely  by  mean? 
of  a  series  of  questiouH.     But  the  numerous  tribunal  before 
which  he  was  called  upon  for  his  jmblic  defense  was  composed 
of  persons,  who  had  a  very  quick  aud  fine  taste  for  oratory  but 
very  little  for  ilialoctic  snbtilty,   and  who  expectetl  a  regular 
speech  on  such  occasions,  not  merely  to  instruct  them  in  the 
luerits  of  the  case,  but  also  as  a  part  of  their  habitual  entertai^ 
ment.     Socrates  must  have  been  aware,  that  unless  he  meant  M 
exasperate  !»!•*  uudiente,  and  indeed  if  he  wished  to  secure  a 
hearing,  it  would  be  necessary  to  l>egin  by  addressing  them 


ons, 
thif 


Socrates,  Sckfeicrmacher^  and  Delbrueck. 


5JS 


the  usual  way,  anil  then  to  take  such  opportunities  ns  he  could 
find,  of  drawing  from  his  accuser  a  confession  of  his  ignorance 
and  injustice.  And  such  is  the  course  which  we  find  him 
actually  pursuing.  It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  proceed  to 
inquire  with  Mr  Ast,  whether,  if  Socrates  had  as  might  Iw 
evpeetcd  conducted  his  defense  iu  a  dialogue,  it  is  likely  that 
Plato  would  have  put  the  substance  of  it  into  the  form  of  a 
continuous  oration:  a  sup]>osition,  which,  he  chinks,  the  passage 
in  the  Gorgias  sufficiently  refutes.  The  question  itself  is  ab- 
surd ;  since  we  see  that  the  author  of  the  Apology  has  not  in 
fact  adopted  such  a  form,  but  has  retained  or  introduced  collo- 
quial passages  of  considerublc  length,  which  it  would  have  been 
just  as  caiy  for  him  to  transform  into  the  ordinary  style  of  the 
bar  as  the  rest  of  the  speech. 

It  appears  then  tlint  this  general  objection  is  so  far  from 
stopping  us  in  the  outaet  of  our  inquiry,  that  u|»on  examination 
it  rather  raises  a  presumption  in  favour  of  tbc  Apology,  and  we 
have  still  to  consider  how  far  this  is  supported  or  rebutted  by 
its  contents.  Mr  Ast  makes  his  next  attack  with  a  two-edged 
argument :  a  weapon,  which  notoriously  requires  to  be  handled 
with  great  deUcacy,  and  may  do  great  injury  to  the  |>erson  who 
wields  it,  if  he  does  not  perceive  its  nature.  Now  this  appears 
to  be  the  case  in  the  present  instance  with  Mr  Ast.  Xenophon 
had  described  Socrates'  defense  by  the  three  characteristics  of 
truth,  frankness,  and  justice  (ti)m  ^iKr}v  d\rjOf<TTaTa  Kat  eXcv- 
QeptutTara  Kal  dtKatoTOTti  e'twcor)  which  Montaigne  has  ex- 
pressed by  saying,  that  the  Apnhgy  is  un  plaidoyer  veritable^ 
franc  et  jujitey  uu  dela  de  tout  ea-etnple^  adding  ()>erhaps  for 
Xenophon^s /levaA'r/o/'ia)  that  it  is  (f  m;m;  hauiieur  inimafiinO' 
hie.  The  counterfeit  Plato  has,  according  to  Mr  Ast,  fixed  his' 
eye  upon  these  traditional  tpialities  of  the  real  defense  (which 
by  the  way  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  understand  if  appbed  to 
a  dialogue),  and  has  endi-avoured  to  convey  a  like  impression  by 
his  imitation.  For  more  than  two  thousand  years  lie  has  suc- 
ceeded in  imposing  upon  the  world,  so  far  as  to  make  his 
readers  believe  that  they  perceived  all  these  qualities  in  his 
work.  This  is  certainly  no  proof  that  the  effect  lias  not  been 
an  illusion ;  but  yet  it  shews  that  the  author,  whoever  he  was, 
went  carefully  and  thoughtfully  to  work,  and  understood  what 


57« 


Slocrnies-,  Schtewmtacher,  and  De/hrneck. 


it  was  tlmt  Plato  would  have  done  if  he  had  undertaken  the 
sumo  task.     But  imfortiiimtely,  iu  Mr  Ast's  judHcmenl,  though 
tlie  debi^i  was  judicious,  he  has  failed  ia  the  execution,  partljrl 
by  going  beyond  the  mark,  and  partly  by  falling  short  of  it;  [ 
Thus  he  makes  Socrates  profess  his  intention  of  confining  him*  J 
self  to  the  simple  truth,  and  declare  that  he  liad  titterctl  nothing 
else.     In  this  Mr  Ast  discavers  the  hand  of  an  exaggerating] 
rhetorician.     From  which  wo  are  to  infer  that,  though  it  be- 
came Socrates  to  speak  tlie  truth,  he  would  liavc  overstepped 
I  the  bounds  of  modesty  if  he  had  asseverated  the  truth  of  what 
t  he  said.     So  again  the  author  of  the  Apology  "  has  paid  care- 
'ful  attention  to  the  quality  expressed  by  Xenophon's  eXtvOe- 
puoTara^    but  has  exaggerated  it,   and  so  frustrated  his   aim.^ 
He    has   confounded  the    noble  pride  of  conscious   innocence, 
I  roused  to  repel  calumny,  with  the  vanity  which  affects  humility, 
[in  order  the  more  effectuallv  to  display  its  pretensions.      One 
instance   of  this   false   humility   occurs  at   the  very  opening, 
where  the  speaker  deprecates  the  title  of  an  expert  orator,  un- 
less such  cxpertness  consists  in  sj}eaking  the  truth  ;  then  indeed  ] 
he  allows  that  he  is  an  orator  n<it  to  l>c  measured  with  his  ad- 
versaries: for  nothing  will  be  heart!  from  him  but  the  simple,' 
unadorned,  truth,     Tliis,  Mr  Ast  observes,  contains  a  covert 
intimation,  that  he  is  a  real  genuine  orator,  the  rest  on  the  con- 
trary mere  miK:k  orators.     Mr  Ast  has  neglected  to  jxiint  out, 
in  what  manner  it  was  possible  for  Socrates  to  have  expressed 
hiutself  on  this  j>oiut  so  as  not  to  exjKise  himself  to  such  an 
imputation.     He  certainly,  by  mure  than  a  covert  intimation, 
claims  a  superiority  over  his  accusers,  if  truth  is  admitted  aa  ^ 
the  standard  :  but  was  there  ever  a  dcfemlnnt  in  a  court  of 
justice  who  did  not  tacitly  or  expressly  make  the  same  claim  ? 
and   though  ho  nTight  think  naked  truth  more  honorable  than 
varnished  falsehood,  he  surely  couhl  not  expect  that  it  would 
be  sufficient  to  raise  him,  in  the  opinion  of  his  hearers,  aa  an 
orator,  above  his  adversaries.     Another  specimen  of  spurious 
irony,  in  which  Mr  Ast  discovers  ostentation  lurking  under  the 
mask  of  humility,  is  the  detaileil  description  given  of  the  invea-  i 
tigation  which   Socrates  instituted  to   prove  the  truth   of  the 
oracle.     Not  that  he  might  not  have  mentioned  the  fact,  but 
he  wonld  not  have  given  so  full  an  account  of  hie  proceedings. 


Socrates,  Schleiertnacher,  and  Deifrruerk. 


677 


Yet  it  dues  not  appear  why  the  general  assertion  that  he  had 
ascertained  the  oracle  to  be  true,  would  have  been  less  gratify- 
ing to  selfcoDiplacency  than  the  particular  illustrations  of  it: 
especially  as  the  order  in  which  they  follow  one  another  (states- 
man, poets,  artisans)  exhibits  the  successive  triumphs  in  a  de- 
creasiuj;  series.  But  to  an  ordinary  reader  who  is  tolerably 
familiar  with  the  part  which  Socrates  takes  in  Plato's  dialogues, 
these  ilbistration.s  will  probably  appear  so  characteristic,  that 
they  at  least  shew  the  learning  and  judgement  of  the  imitator. 
After  this  we  ore  less  surprisetl  to  find  Mr  Ast  objecting^  that 
Socrates  is  made  to  lay  claim  to  wisdom  for  himself,  and  ironi- 
cally to  depreciate  that  of  the  Sophists  (unfortunately  1  have 
not  an  edition  which  enables  nie  to  verify  Mr  Ast'a  references, 
but  see  p/iO.)  to  assert  that  he  is  a  benefactor  to  the  state,  and 
on  that  account  envied  and  calumniated.  Here  it  is  impos- 
sible, or  useless,  to  refute:  we  can  only  express  astonishment 
at  the  obliquity  of  the  organs  which  could  distort  all  this  into 
the  language  of  affectation  and  self-conceit,  and  must  recom- 
mend every  one  to  read  and  judge  for  himself.  But  it  is  still 
more  extraordinary  to  find  Mr  Ast  grounding  anutlier  argument 
on  the  frequent  re<|uests  which  the  s[>eaker  makes  for  a  patient 
hearing.  The  necessity  for  such  requests  indicates  indeed  the 
vicious  constitution  of  the  Athenian  courts  of  justice.  But  we 
know  that  it  frequently  occurred,  and  can  very  easily  conceive 
how  it  miglu  arise  more  frequently  than  usual  in  a  case  so  sin- 
gular as  that  of  Socrates.  In  fact  Mr  Ast  himself  remarks  that 
these  petitions  for  silence  were  grounded  on  the  fact,  which  is 
mentioned  in  the  Apology  ascribed  to  Xenophon,  that  Socrates 
was  often  interrupted  by  impatient  murmurs.  Yet  to  deprecate 
such  interruption  is  a  mark  of  unmanly  timidity,  by  which  the 
rhetorician  lias  betrayed  his  own  incapacity  for  comprehending 
that  noble  intrepidity  which  he  designed  to  represent.  He  has 
contrived  to  make  Socrates  at  once  a  covert  braggart,  and  an 
aviiwed  coward.  He  does  but  poorly  dissemble  his  timidity, 
when  he  affects  to  dissuade  the  people  for  their  own  sake,  from 
putting  him  to  death  (p.  SI.  A).  Who,  says  Mr  Ast,  does  not 
see  the  rhetorical  turn  of  this  passage  ?  The  prayer  for  mercy 
disguised  in  the  sliape  of  disinterested  advice.  The  question 
might  perhaps  be  truly  answered,  if  we  should  say :  Nobody 


57B 


Socraiifi^  SahUnermacker,  and  Detltrueck. 


Iwforc  or  since  Mr  Ast.  But  at  all  events  it  must  be  allowed, 
that  tin:  rhetorician  lias  displayed  at  least  as  much  dexterity  ia 
concealing  the  pusillanimity  of  Socrates  from  the  eyes  of  his 
readers,  as  dulitess  in  not  discerning  it  himself. 

We  have  perhaps  dwelt  too  long  on  these  points :  for  they 
are  of  such  a  nature,  that  a  man  ought  scarcely  to  be  listened 
to,  who  ventures  to  assert  that  mnnkind  has  been  for  agefl 
labouring  under  a  gross  delusion  on  them.  AVe  quit  this  part 
of  the  subject  with  two  remarks.  One  is,  that  every  step  of 
Mr  Ast's  argumentation  increases  the  difficulty  we  find,  in 
imagining  uhat  the  conception  can  be  which  he  has  formed  of 
Socrates'"  real  defense.  The  other  is,  that  he  seems  never  to 
have  paused  to  reflect  upon  the  question:  whether  humim  lan- 
guage aifords  any  terms  for  innocence  and  virtue  to  use,  which 
malice  or  prejudice  may  not  wrest  into  signs  of  affectation  and 
hypocrisv- 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  some  objections  of  a  mare 
tangible  kind,  and  which  interest  us  the  more,  because  they 
rest  on  ground  which  is  common  to  IMr  Ast  with  Mr  Dclbrueek. 
^Videly  as  their  views  diverge  on  other  points,  they  agree  iti 
considering  the  pleas  which  Socrates  is  made  to  set  iip  against 
the  main  charges  brought  against  him,  as  frivolous  and  sophis- 
tical :  such  as  neither  he  could  have  used,  nor  Plato  have  in- 
vented for  him,  unless  one  or  the  other  is  to  forfeit  our  admira- 
tion and  resjject.  Mr  Ast  was  not  obliged  to  consider  this 
alternative:  Mr  Oelbrueck  appears  to  be  steeled  against  it. 
We  cannot  contemplate  it  with  so  much  equanimity:  but  above 
all  we  dt'sirc  to  know  whether  it  is  inevitable. 

Mr  Ast  despatches  the  first  question  much  more  briefly 
than  Mr  D.,  but  in  a  very  diflerent  manner,  and  he  certainly 
does  not  appear  to  have  considered  it  with  ecjual  attention. 
lie  agrees  with  Mr  D.  in  saying,  that  the  arguuient  designed 
to  prove  that  Socrates  did  not  voluntarily  corrupt  the  young 
is  empty  sophistry ;  but  does  not  enter  into  any  discussion  of 
it.  He  then  observes,  that  no  reply  is  given  to  the  charge 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  meant  by  the  prosecutors,  which 
is  explained  by  Xenophnn  in  the  Memorabilia  i.  2,  9.,  where 
it  is  said  that  Socrates  was  accusetl  of  elating  the  youth 
of    Athens    with    an    arrogant   contempt  £»{   their   hereditary 


SooraiiNt,  Schieiermaeher,  and  Delbrueck. 


579 


institutions,  and  of  making  them  prone  to  violence.  Mr  Ast, 
howe\'er,  puts  a  most  singular  construction  on  this  charge**. 
He  thinks  it  was  meant  particularly  to  refer  to  Alcibiades, 
and  that  the  offense  of  which  Socrates  had  l)een  guilty  with 
respect  to  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  Athenians^  was  that  of  rivalling 
theui  in  his  aflections,  and  attempting  to  withdraw  him  front 
public  affairs  to  philosophical  contemplation.  In  this  sense 
he  was  accused  uf  seducing  and  corrupting  their  youth.  An- 
other branch  of  the  same  charge  was,  as  Mr  Ast  infers  from 
a  passage  in  the  Gorgias  (531  A.  5S2  A.),  that  Socrates  per- 
plexed the  understanding  of  his  young  hearers  by  his  subtiltics. 
That  the  defense  in  the  Apilogi,'  does  not  expressly  meet 
the  charge  in  this  sense,  must  be  acknowledged.  But  it  re- 
mains to  be  proved,  or  render(?d  probable,  that  Socrates  so 
understood  it.  What  Xenophon  specifies  was  probably  al- 
ledged  by  the  prosecutors  in  explanation  and  support  of  the 
more  general  terms  of  the  indictment.  Whether  they  put  the 
same  construction  with  Mr  Ast  on  the  intimacy  between  Socrates 
and  .'VIcibiades,  we  arc  not  informed.  If  they  did,  it  would 
be  a  surprising  coincidence,  tint  Uie  main  (jnestion  is,  whether 
Mr  Ast  is  correct  in  liis  assertion,  which  is  in  substance  the 
same  with  Mr  Delbrueck'.s,  that  the  Apology  does  not  go  to 
the  point,  but  leaves  this  part  of  the  accusation  uurefuted. 
And  here  it  must  be  admitted,  that  to  a  certain  degpree  both 
have  truth  on  their  side:  for  the  passage  which  they  single 
out,  as  containing  the  pith  of  the  argument,  is  certainly  not 
a  satisfactory  plea.  But' on  the  other  hand,  why  are  we  bound 
to  consider  it  by  itself,  and  to  stake  this  part  uf  the  cause 
upon  it .''  If  the  questions  put  to  Melctus  answer  nu  other 
purpose  than  that  of  perplexing  him,  and  Socrates  had  been 
fcatisfied  with  this  triumph  over  his  adversary,  and  had  said 
nothing  further  on  the  subject,  he  would  indeed  have  evaded 
the  charge  instead  of  refuting  it.  But  if  he  has  on  the  whole 
completely  vindicated  himself,  what  right  have  we  to  complain 
t>ecause  in  this  particular  piissage  he  has  directed  his  aim 
more  toward   the  person  than   the  cose?     Now  the  real  and 

'  Mr  Ast  Rndx  in  Kllu-iion  to  thin  chargt  in  the  PoUlIcum  p.  2tM.  i'.  O.  K.  211*.  A. 
hecioae  it  is  thert  wgned  that  ■  •t»te*man  i»  jo-Miflwl  io  usin([ft>nipulrirMi  for  beneJififcl 
purpoiieii,  even  af[*in9t  the  Imict  of  tht  \%wn . 

VoT..  II.  No.  6.  4E 


080 


6'tHrro/ir*,  Schleiermacher,  and  Delbrutck. 


decisive  answer  to  the  charge  of  corrupting  the  young,  is 
taiucd  in  the  descriptioa  Socrates  ^vcb  of  his  pursuits  and 
tiobits,  which  were  a  matter  of  public  notoriety,  and  in  the 
i  testimony  which  he  was  ready  to  produce  of  t!ie  parents  aud 
riends  of  tbo»e  who  had  experienced  llie  influence  of  hia  ao 
But   the  admission   which    he   draw*   from    Meletus, 
ftliough  not    sufficient   of  itself  to  prove  liis  iunocence,    wasj 
.  Rtill  ail  important  step  toward  that  end,  which  is  completed  Jrt^ 
.the  context.     For  though,  as  Mr  Delbrueck  observes*  it  would 
I  bave  served  to  aci|uit  tl»e  worst  of  the  S^»plust8  as  well   aS;, 
,  Socrates,  what   is    Iiere   left    wanting?  to  distinguish    his 
I  from  theirs  is  elsewhere  abundantly  suppbed.     The  Soplusts 
could  nut  have  pleaded  that,  liecause  no  man  can  be  impelled 
by  the  simple  desire  of  making  his  ncighltours  worse,  therefor 
,  they  could  Bot  voluntarily  have  corru]>ted  their  liearers ;   be«| 
cause  the   answer  wouUl   immediately    have   presented    itself fl 
that  their  wickcdnci^s  wus  itut  gratuitous,  but  stimulated    hy* 
the  prospect  of  reputation  and  gain.     But  Socrates  could  con- 
fidently appeal    to   that    depth  of  poverty    {nvpia    irevia)    in 
whii^li   he   had    voluntarily   [rasacd  his   life,  and    to   the  hatred 
and  persecution  which  he  had  incurred,  and  to  the  very  situa- 
tion in  which  he   then  stood,  as  so  many  proofs,  that,  if  hi 
had  misted  or  corrupted  any  one  by  his  conversation,  it  must] 
have  been  unwittingly.     So  that  if  Melctus  liad  been  able  to| 
draw  that  distinction  between  the  two  meanings  of  c-kwc,  which 
Mr  Delbrueck   has  explained  to  us,   he  might  bave  brought 
the  question  a  step  nearer   to  the  issue,   but  the  issue  must 
still  have  been  decided  against  him,  and  not  on  any  verbal 
suhtilty,  but  on  the  justice  of  the  case.     And  hence  it  does 
not  seem  necessary  to  suppose,  cither  that  Socrates  was  himself 
deceived   by  the  ambiguity  of  the  word,  or  that  he  designed 
to  deceive  others.      It  may  indeed  be  said   that  this  diolf^uc, 
since  by  itself  it  proves  notliing,  is  superfluous,  and  then  it 
would  be  a  weak  |K>int,  such  as  Schleiermacher   admits  the 
work  contains:  but   tliere  will  be  nothing  in  it  to  offend  or 
distress    us    so   deeply    as    Mr  Delbrueck.     Wa.s   it    however 
so  trivial   an  advantage,  or  so  uuwortliy  of  Socrates,  to  shew 
the  emptiness  and  feebleness  of  the  man  who  had  uudertakea 
to   decide  on  the  tendency  of  his  life  and  doctrines?     And 


S0cfiUitt','  Schteiermaeher^  and  Deihnteck.  5R1 

may  it  not  be  possible  that,  if  wu  had  the  H{>ecch  of  MeletUR 
before  us,  ire  might  find  in  it  a  key  to  the  tone  in  which 
Socratc3  addresses  him  ? 

But  we  proceed  t<*  examine  the  manner  in  which  the  author 
of  the  Apology  endeavours  to  repel  the  second  charge,  that 
of  impiety  and  unbelief.  The  charge  itself  consists  oi  two 
heads.  Socrates  is  accused  of  rejecting  the  gods  acknowledged 
by  the  state,  and  of  substituting  for  them  a  <lifferent  object, 
of  which  we  shall  speak  presently.  Schlcicrmachor  has  ob- 
ser\-ed,  that  the  first  part  of  the  cliarge  is  not  answered  bo 
forcibly  as  it  might  have  been :  and  the  defect  which  he  points 
out  is  exactly  similar  to  that  which  we  have  noticed  in  the 
preceding  branch  nf  the  defense.  An  answer  is  given,  but  it 
is  not  formally  and  directly  applied  tf»  the  question.  Socrates 
declares,  that  the  greater  part  of  his  life  has  been  .i^pent  in  the 
«er\-ice  of  the  Delphic  god :  but  he  draws  no  inference  from 
this  fact  against  the  charge  of  impiety.  It  may  be  said  that 
his  assertion  was  no  proof  of  the  fact;  but  it  was  as  strong 
a  one  as  bis  accusers  could  have  brotight  against  him,  and 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  admitte<l.  For  his  religious  con- 
victions could  only  be  known  to  himself,  and  his  confomiity 
to  the  worship  of  the  state,  which  is  the  argument  iwed  in 
Xenophon^s  Apology,  II,  was  no  less  equivocal  evidence. 
'  A  much  more  difficult  question  arises  on  the  second  branch 
of  the  charge,  as  to  the  meaning  attached  by  the  prosecutor 
himself  to  the  terms  he  used,  and  the  sense  in  which  they 
ore  taken  by  the  defendant.  Mr  Ast  states  the  charge  to  be, 
tliat  Socrates  introduced  new  gwls  in  the  room  of  those  wor- 
Hhip[>ed  by  his  countrymen  :  and  he  censures  the  author  of  the 
A|K)logy  for  having  mistaken  the  meaning  of  the  word  ^wfjuwia, 
aiul  Schleiermacher  for  having  suiTcretl  himself  to  be  misled  by 
this  mistake.  In  the  Apology  the  word  is  used  adjectively, 
and  it  is  on  this  use  of  it  that  the  argument  turns.  Mr  Ast 
undertakes  to  correct  this  error,  by  cx]>lftining  the  real  meaning 
of  the  word.  But  we  are  afraid  his  explanation  will  not  be 
thought  to  throw  much  light  on  the  subject  t  for  he  begina 
by  informing  us,  that  Satfiovtov  is  neither  simply  an  adjective, 
80  thnt  it  shotild  fre  necessanj  tn  supply  epyov^  atmeiov-, 
or  the  like,  nor  yet  n  substantive  denoting  a  particfstar  or 
pecttUar  beiftg  (he  refers  to  Lcnnep  on  Phalaris,  p.  338).      In- 


582 


Socrates,  Schkiertnachert  and  Deibtueck. 


stead  of  this,  according  to  him,  it  has  two  signiBcations, 
that  which  is  divine  in  general,  that  is,  the  divine  naturCi 
tbe  gods,  or  simply  the  deity ;  the  other,  that  which  is  divioej 
as  the  work  or  revelation  of  the  gods.  These  two  significa- 
tions, however,  we  arc  told  are  so  closely  allied,  that  it  u 
scarcely  possible  to  distinguish  them,  and  in  fact  neither  ol 
them  excludes  the  other,  though  it  is  sometimes  one  and 
sometimes  the  other  thai  predominates.  So  far  as  wc  cao 
find  our  way  in  this  truly  da?moman  twilight,  which  Mr  Ast 
has  selected  as  the  most  proper  medium  for  viewing  this  my* 
teriuus  subject,  we  feel  inclined  to  suspect  that  he  has  seen 
an  object  double,  which,  upon  closer  inspection,  will  turn 
out  to  be  simple,  and  that  he  has  been  deceived  by  an  ap- 
pearance on  the  con6nes  between  adjective  and  stubstanttve, 
which  a  little  consideration  will  prove  to  be  a  nonentity.  He 
concludes  by  asking,  whether  in  the  expression  of  the  indict- 
ment, ii-epa  Katvd  Satmofia,  the  last  word  must  not  he  taken 
substantively  ?  and  observes,  that  the  sense  is  required  by  the 
contrast  between  these  xatva  catfiovta  and  the  gods  of  tlie  state. 
In  the  mean  while  he  has  not  produced  a  single  other  passage 
to  justify  the  rendering,  new  deities,  and  the  argument  which 
he  draws  from  the  terms  of  the  indictment  is  very  far  from 
convincing.  Since  the  gods  of  the  state  might  have  been 
described  collectively  as  to  Belovy  or  to  ^aijuociov,  so  as 
merely  to  express  the  supernatural  or  divine,  abstracting  froc 
the  distiuctiun  between  a  person  or  agent,  and  a  thing,  the 
seems  tu  be  no  impropriety  in  opposing  erepa  Kvuvd  ^atfioit 
to  them  in  an  equally  general  sense. 

Schleiermacher,  in  a  note  to  his  translation  of  the  Jpol 
observes,  that  it  appears  from  the  Memorabilia  i.  1.  2.  5,  that 
Socrates  himself  can  never  have  considered  that  wluch,  under 
the  phrase  to  ^aitAOvioVi  he  described  as  his  inward  monitor, 
in  the  light  of  a  specific  supernatural  being.  For  Xenophon 
there  speaks  of  it  as  something  resembling  in  kind  the  ordinary 
instruments  of  divination,  as  birds,  voices,  omens,  sacrifices. 
And  in  this  same  passage  he  mentions  his  conjecture,  that  this 
was  the  origin  of  the  charge  brought  against  Socrates  of 
religious  innovation :  Kai  fiavTiKti  yptufuvo^  ovk  aipavtjs  iSfl 
ouTeOpuWtfTo  yopt  ojv  ^airi  XatKpaTtjs,  ro  ^atfiovtov  tavr^ 
atffAQli'€u>-  odet'  or/  koi  fiaXtvTa  fxot  corcownv  avTov  airmc 


Socrates^  Schieiermachery  and  Delhrueck. 


583 


KUivd  Sattiovta  e'lGt^ipftv,  O  oe  oitcev  natvoTppou  €'tffe<p€pe 
Twv  aWtov  oaoi  navriKrjv  vo/i'tl^ovT€^  oitavotv  T€  ^^pwvrai  Kal 
d>^tMaK  real  arvfifioXoi^-  nut  BuaiitK.  According  to  this  opinion 
of  Xenophon,  whicli  was  probably  also  that  of  Socrates,  it 
was  extremely  natural  for  the  latter  to  interpret  the  language 
of  the  indictment  as  he  is  made  to  do  in  our  Apology.  At 
the  same  time  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Meletus  either 
himself  had  any  clear  and  definite  notion  on  the  subject,  or 
wished  to  convey  any.  He  ado|>ted  an  expression  of  the 
greatest  possible  latitude,  not  particularly  caring  ])crhaps 
what  conceptions  it  suggestwl,  so  long  as  they  were  such  as 
would  excite  the  rage  of  bigotry  and  fanaticism  against  So- 
crates; and  for  this  he  sufficiently  provided  by  the  two  ac- 
companying epithets,  ertpat  and  Kcuvri-  It  mattered  little 
what  it  was  that  Socrates  had  inti-odiiced,  so  long  as  it  was 
proved  to  be  something  connected  wilh  religion,  whicl)  waa 
new,  and  di^fernnt  from  the  received  opinions. 

Mr  Ast's  next  objection  has  even  less  appearance  of  force. 
He  contends  that  our  author  has  entirely  mistaken  the  nature 
of  the  supernatural  sign  by  which  Socrates  was  guided,  when 
be  represents  it  as  exerting  a  merely  restraining  power,  and 
Cicero  wlio,  de  Divinat.  i.  54,  has  a<loptctJ  the  same  view  of 
it,  loses  in  consequence  all  credit  fur  discernment  with  Mr  AsC. 
A  passage  in  the  Pha^drua,  which  gives  exactly  the  same 
account  of  the  stipcnintural  sign,  (p.  24:3.  B.  aeX  <ie  fxe  eviax^t, 
o  av  /ji€\\ai  wfXiTTc-iv,)  is  for  no  other  reason  supposed  to  be 
interpolated.  MrAst  conceives  that  it  is  in  itself  incredible, 
that  the  divine  intimation  should  never  have  manifested  itself 
except  in  warning  or  deterring;  a  point  on  which,  until  we 
obtain  some  more  accurate  information  about  its  nature,  it 
will  jjerhaps  be  *^fer  not  to  pronounce  an  opinion.  He  also 
contends  that  the  contrary  is  stated  by  Xenophon  in  several 
passages  of  the  Memorabilia,  where  the  sign  is  said  to  have 
announced  to  Socrates,  as  well  what  he  was  to  do  as  what 
to  avoid:  for  instance,  i.  1,4.  iv.  8.  l.  Hut  there  is  really 
no  incontiistency  between  these  and  similar  passages  and  the 
assertion  in  our  Apology,  and  in  the  Pha'drus.  For  it  is 
evident  that  a  sign  which  only  forbade  might,  by  its  absence, 
«hew  what  was  permitted,  and  thus  a  |}Ositive  kind  of  guidance 
might  not  improperly  be  ascrilwd  to  it:   as  in  the  case   liefore 


AM 


Socrates,  SrhUttermar.her,  and  Deihrueck. 


us  it  might  have  been  truly  said,  that  Socrates  waa  Jnwardljr 
encouraged  to  present  himself  before  his  judges,  because  the 
wurnuig  voice  had  given  no  signal  of  aiiy  approaching^  erih 
Thiersch  has  some  excellent  remarks  on  the  steps  by  which 
this  divine  voice  or  sign  was  gradually  elevated  in  the  imagin- 
ation of  later  writers  into  a  supernatural  being,  the  genius 
of  Socrates.  But  this  u  an  inquiry  foreign  to  our  present 
subject. 

It  appears  then  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  our 
Apologist  misttKjk  anything  that  was  intelligible  in  the  char^ 
of  irreligiun  and  new  rellgiuu  which  was  brought  against^ 
Socrates.  But  still  we  have  to  inquire  whether  his  attempt  tt 
rcl'utc  the  latter  charge  is  not,  as  Mr  Delbnieck  contends, 
were  sophistical  evasion,  Mr  Ast  likewise  condemns  it  as  nc 
merely  sophistical  and  absurd,  but,  if  that  is  anything  more,  JdU 
and  groundless.  But  his  manner  of  proving  it  to  he  so  seems 
tn  partake  very  largely  of  the  same  qualities;  for  he  assumes^ 
that  the  work  is  a  counterfeit,  and  that  Meletus  meant  to  charge 
Socrates  not  with  absolute  atheism,  but  only  with  introducing 
new  deities.  Since  however  we  cannot  yet  consent  to  this  as- 
Bumption,  we  must  take  it  for  granted  that  in  the  course  of  the 
trial  Meletus.  l)eiiig  questioned  about  his  meaning,  gave  the 
answer  which  we  find  reported  in  the  Apologj',  and  which  he 
probably  thought  would  be  most  injurious  to  Socrates,  or  most 
diHicult  for  hin»  to  refute,  or  the  easiest  for  himself  to  defend  : 
that  he  believed  no  go<ls  at  all.  This  then  was  the  charge 
which  Socrates  bad  to  meet.  But  Mr  Delbrueck  object*  that 
instead  of  meeting  it  fairly,  by  a  confession  of  his  religious 
principles  actrording  to  the  model  he  himself  proposes,  Socrates 
again  contents  himself  with  a  miserable  triumph  over  the  sim- 
plicity of  Meletus,  who  is  entrapped  into  a  declaration  con- 
trary to  his  own  meaning,  about  the  equivocal  word  ^aiuona. 
Mr  Delbrueck  will  have  it  that  Meletus  in  his  indictment  used 
the  word,  not,  as  Mr  Ast  supposes,  in  a  very  narrow  sense,  but 
in  the  most  general  of  all,  ami  so  as  to  exclude  all  relation  to 
SatMov^i  as  personal  beings.  But  little  as  we  can  feel  any  par- 
tiality for  Meletus,  justice  is  due  to  him  as  well  as  to  his  adver- 
sary, and  it  really  seems  to  be  taking  too  groat  a  liberty  with 
him,  to  impute  to  him  a  degree  of  stupidity  almost  worthy  of 
Melitides,  merely  that  Sinrates  may  take  a  contemptible  advnn- 


Socrateny  Schleietmacher-,  and  Delbrrteck. 


585 


tage  of  it.  How  does  Mr  D.  know  what  Meletiis  mcunt  by 
his  indictment?  and  why  may  not  Xtnophon  have  bueii  right 
in  his  conjecture,  that  it  may  have  been  suggested  to  liim  by 
the  reports  that  were  spread  about  the  peculiar  kind  of  divi- 
nation which  Socrates  professed?  If  so,  it  would  not  have 
been  Likely  that  he  should  have  answered  Socrates  by  saying 
that  ^fjLOfta  meant  something  which  did  not  imply  the  exist- 
ence of  any  kind  of  su[>ematural  beings,  and  he  would  have 
entangled  himself  in  a  difficulty  from  which  an  abler  dispulant 
would  scarcely  have  been  able  to  extricate  himself,  if  he  had 
attempted  to  define  a  class  of  supernatural  agents  which  did 
not  fall  under  the  <lenomination  either  of  0foc  or  ^'mtev-  On 
the  other  hand,  if  Socrates,  as  he  is  made  to  sny  at  j>.  .'J  I  l).,,  was 
reminded  by  the  indictment  of  his  own  supernatural  warnings, 
and  was  in  the  habit  of  referring  them  to  a  higher  power,  he 
had  no  inducement  to  combat  the  charge,  as  if  it  had  imputed 
to  him  disbelief  of  all  pt^rsonal  existence  of  beings  superior  to 
man.  It  seems  very  doubtful  wheilier  any  Greek  could  have 
given  a  better  answer  than  Meletus:  for  Aristotle  in  alluding 
to  it,  expressly  in  one  passage  of  the  Rhetoric  (i!i.  18,),  and 
tacitly,  but  distinctly,  in  another  (ii.  2:)),  manifestly  considers 
Uie  argument  as  a  legitimate  one,  from  which  there  was  no 
escape.  And  indeed  what  could  it  be  that  guided  or  warned 
Socrates,  in  the  most  momentous  epochs  of  his  life,  but  some- 
thing endowed  with  intelligence  and  will  ?  Meletus  therefore 
when  pressetl  upon  this  point,  could  scarcely  help  retracting 
his  charge  of  atheism,  which  nevertheless,  without  a  great  deal 
more  either  of  candour  or  of  forethought  than  we  are  called 
upon  to  attribute  to  him,  he  was  very  likely  to  make.  From 
whatever  side  the  cbargv  of  irreligion  was  examined,  it  was 
sure  to  prove  a  base,  malignant,  calumny.  Socrates  begun  at 
a  point  from  which  he  was  soon  led  to  detect  the  confusion  of 
his  adversary's  ideas,  and  hence  to  drop  the  inquiry  :  but  botli 
the  negative  and  the  positive  part  of  the  charge,  in  the  sense 
which  Meletus  assigned  to  them,  are  substantially  answered 
in  our  Apology.  On  the  other  hand  the  declaration  which  Mr 
Dellirueck  wishes  Socrates  to  have  made,  would  certainly  have 
been  unintelligible  to  the  great  majority  of  his  hearers,  even  if 
he  would  have  understood  it  himself;  but  all  that  is  in  it  really 


Socrates,  Schleierviacker,  and  Delhrueck, 


applicable  to  his  caae,  is  much  more  forcibly  expressed  in  his 
own  speech. 

If  we  might  hope  that  we  have  despatched  Mr  Delbrueck^s 
first  two  objections,  we  should  proceed  with  great  conHdenee  to 
meet  the  remaining  one,  which  relates  to  the  language  of  So- 
crates on  the  subject  of  death.  The  former  pas.sage»,  when 
they  are  torn  from  the  context  undoubtedly  present  an  ap- 
pearance of  difficulty  :  but  the  third  seems  to  carry  its  meaning 
so  clearly  on  its  face  that  it  requires  some  ingenuity  to  mis- 
interpret it.  Whoever  the  author  of  the  Apology  was,  he  was 
certainly  not  a  person  of  such  contemptible  understanding  as 
to  make  Socrates  express  contradictory  sentiments  in  the  course 
of  the  same  passage.  When  therefore  we  find  him  sjjeaking 
with  transport  of  the  hope  of  a  future  life,  we  cannot  suppose 
that  he  had  just  before  been  describing  annihilation  as  a  thing 
in  itself  butler  than  existence.  Tlie  mention  of  the  Great 
King,  which  is  so  peculiarly  cfi'ensive  to  Mr  Delbrueck,  seema 
to  suggest  a  natural  explanation  of  the  sentiment,  which  renders 
it  perfectly  worthy  and  characteristic  of  Socrates.  Assuredly 
he  who  had  lived  so  long  in  the  extreme  of  poverty,  and  yet  was 
conscious  of  having  enjoyed  the  highest  happiness  that  man 
can  taste  on  earth,  did  not  mean  to  represent  the  condition 
of  the  Persian  king  as  supremely  desirable.  Rut  he  may  have 
meant  to  indicate  that,  according  to  the  use  which  most  men 
make  of  life,  and  according  to  their  ideas  of  its  value,  the  good 
and  evil  are  so  nearly  balanced,  as  to  neutralize  each  otlter,  and 
frequently  to  render  the  loss  of  it  a  gain.  Certainly  ifi  as  Mr 
Delbrueck  suggests,  the  wise  and  good  man  had  Ijei-n  mentioned 
instead  of  the  Great  King,  it  must  have  been  for  a  very  differ- 
ent purpose.  But  if  Socrates  could  have  alluded  to  his  own 
particular  case,  he  migiit  perhaps  have  consoled  his  friends 
with  the  remark  :  that  to  him  death  was  a  gain,  as  it  enlarged 
and  perjwtuatcd  the  moral  influence  of  his  life;  or,  as  Mr  D. 
says,  because  his  truly  happy  life  began  with  and  arose  out  of 
his  death. 

Surely  these  are  not  difficiilties  which  need  drive  a  man  to 
despair,  or  which  ought  to  embitter  his  solitary  hours  with 
melancholy,  or  from  which  he  can  reasonably  hope  to  be  relieved 
by  n  special  dispensation  of  Providence.     It  is  a  case  in  wlli<^ 


.Vorr«/e»»  fSchieieritittrher,  ttnd  De/ftntrrk. 


5ft7 


if  wc  put  our  shoulders  to  the  wheel  wc  shall  he  ahle  to 
extricate  ourselves  from  our  scruples,  and  to  pursue  our 
journey  with  case  and  cht-erfulncss.  We  have  only  one  ob- 
servation to  add  before  we  quit  this  subject,  on  which  wc  may 
appear  to  some  to  have  dwelt  too  long.  Mr  Delbrueck's 
oj)ening  reflexions  on  the  efl'ett  which  tiic  oracle  produced 
upon  Socrates  are  pleasing  and  interesting,  but  they  ap|)ear  to 
us  to  contain  a  mixtLm?  of  truth  and  error.  It  may  be  readily 
conceived,  and  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  several  authentic 
accounts,  that  Socrates  really  considered  himself  as  fulfilling 
a  divine  mission  by  his  Ufe  and  labours.  But  that  this  idea 
was  first  suggested  to  him  by  the  Delphic  oracle  is,  to  say 
the  least,  extremely  improbable;  though  such  an  accidental 
occurrence  (for  who  but  a  sincere  Pagan  can  believe  it  to  have 
Iteen  more)  may  have  contributed  to  confirm  the  impression, 
and  may  have  given  it  a  definite  form  in  his  mind.  But  surely 
his  character  and  pursuits  had  been  already  fixed,  before  Cho^ 
rephoii  could  have  ventured  to  inquire,  whether  any  man  better 
deserved  the  title  of  wise.  No  additional  dignity  is  imparted 
to  his  selfdevotion,  by  considering  it  as  the  effect  of  such  a 
casual  inspiration.  It  was  the  spontaneous,  neces&ary,  result  of 
his  moral  and  intellectual  constitution,  and  needed  not  to  1>e 
connected  with  the  eternal  order  of  Providence  by  a  tie  so  frail 
aa  a  perishable  superstition. 


C.T. 


SIMPLICIUS   DE   CCELO. 


Most  scholars  are  aware  that  the  Greek  text  of  the 
eomnientary  of  Simplicius  on  Aristotle^s  treatise  de  Coelo  first 
published  by  Aldus  at  Venice  in  1526,  is  spurious;  haTin^ 
been  printed  from  a  strangely  garbled  version  of*  paraphrase 
of  the  genuine  work.  This  circumstance  was  first  made  known 
to  the  learned  by  Mons*  Amed^  Peyron,  of  Turin,  who 
discovered  in  the  Royal  Library  of  that  city  a  M9.  containing 
the  true  text  of  Simplicius,  and  published  some  specimens  of 
it,  together  with  the  corresponding  passages  in  the  Venetian 
edition ;  so  as  to  leave  no  doubt  whatever  respecting  the  fact 
he  was  desirous  of  establishing\  It  still  remains  however  to 
be  explained  by  what  singular  accident  Aldus  came  to  pitch 
upon  the  spurious  MS.  from  which  he  published  his  edition. 
I  term  it  a  singular  accident  because  I  apprehend  that  the 
interpolated  text  is  much  more  scarce  than  the  genuine  one; 
and  had  Aldus  collated  any  other  copy  he  must  have  disco- 
vered his  error.  The  Florence  Library  contains  another  copy 
of  the  spurious  Simplicius* ;  but  the  University  of  Oxford 
possesses  no  less  than  four  MSS.  containing  either  the  whole 
or  considerable  portions  of  the  genuine  work.  The  most 
valuable  and  perfect  of  these  is  a  MS.  belonging  to  Corpus 
Christi  College.  It  is  a  large  folio  of  341  leaves,  written 
on  paper  by  different  hands,  with  few  abbreviations,  about 
the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century*,  and  with  the  exception 
of  some  trifling  lacunae,  contains  the  entire  treatise  of  Simpli- 

'  Empedodu  et  Pumenidis  FragmenU  ex  Codice  Taiirinensu  Bibliotheca  le- 
■tituu  et  iUustntft  ab  Amcdeo  Peyron  in  Taurln.  Acad.  ll.  Orient.  Profettore  Viee» 
Oerente.  Simul  agitut  de  genuino  Ornco  Textu  CommeDtarii  Simplicii  in  Aijy- 
totelon  de  Colo  et  Mundo.     Lips.  1810.   8vo. 

'  BibL  Medic.  LaureDt.  Catal.  Cod.  27.    Plut.  8t.   noticed  by  Prof.  Peyron. 

*  At  the  bottom  of  the  fiivt  leaf  is  the  following  note :  Hie  liber  mnptua  fait  ab 
hflTcdibiu  GuUelmi  Orodm  Anno  Donuui  1501  pro  CoUegio  Corporis  Christi  Clai- 
numdo  Prstida. 


SimpiU^us   de   Casio, 


589 


«U8.  By  the  kindness  of  the  President  and  Fellows  of  the 
Society  to  which  it  belongs,  I  have  boon  ennbted  to  ntake 
some  extracts  from  it,  which  !  shall  lay  before  the  reader 
in  conjunction  with  the  corrcRponding  passages  in  the  Venetian 
edition  of  loSfi,  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  compare  the  two 
texts  together,  and  form  his  owu  explanation  of  this  literary 
curiosity.  Mons"^  Peynm  was  inclined  tq  think  that  the 
spurious  text  was  a  retranslation  of  the  Latin  version  of 
William  de  Moerbcke,  who  wad  Archbishop  of  Corinth  about 
1280  A.  D.  This  version  was  first  published  at  Venice  in 
1540,  and  Mods'  Peyron  has  certainly  proved  that  there 
exists  a  remarkable  coincidence  between  it  and  the  spurious 
Simplicius ;  but  his  hypothesis  leaves  one  important  pheau- 
menon  unexplained,  namely,  the  agreement  of  the  false  with 
the  genuine  text,  iu  so  many  instances  that  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  the  interpolator  must  liave  had  access  to  the 
original  work.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  the  interpolated  text 
ought  rather  to  be  looked  ujKin  as  a  paraphrase  made  from 
the  genuine  treatise  of  Siniplicius;  that  this  formed  the  basis 
of  de  Mocrbeke''s  truuslution,  und  having  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  the  Venetian  printer,  was  published  by  him  as  the  original 
commentary  on  Aristotle''s  treatise  de  Ccelo.  It  is  certain  that 
paraphrasp-s  were  very  common  in  the  middle  ages,  especially 
among  the  commentators  of  Aristotle,  and  Siniplicius  himself 
held  a  sufficiently  distinguished  rank  among  the  interpreters 
of  that  philosoplier,  to  deserve  that  his  work  should  l>e  made 
the  subject  of  a  similar  exercise.  The  paraphrase  in  question 
is  not  without  its  value  in  a  critical  jioint  of  view,  as  it  often 
leads  to  the  true  reading  where  the  MSS.  of  the  genuine  text 
are  defective. 

In  making  the  following  extracts,  my  wish  has  been 
principall3'  to  exhibit  those  portions  of  the  work  of  Simpli- 
cius,  which  contain  passages  from  writers  now  tost,  especially 
the  fragments  of  Paniienides  and  Empcdocles,  in  which  the 
readings  of  the  Corpus  MS.  are  iu  many  instances  preferable 
to   those  of  the  Turin  copy   pubUshed  by  Professor  Peyron- 


fm 


SiiMpluius   de  Caeh. 


Ed.  Vexkt. 

Fol.  la.        i)   oe   9eio^  'la/i[S\t\ost   tov  ckoitov  €v    tov- 

yroif  iroiovfxtvov  Trept  ruv   oirpavlou  Kat   Beiou   aaiMaTOf    tpifat 

lvepi\u,uf^v€iv   Kai  Tffv  trepi   ttovtos  tov  KotTfiOV  Qewpiav,  «t»r 

ori  weptCYOfxevrfv   vir     avrou   kot    outxiav,  Kat   wfiKOUcrav  aurip 

lirpof  Trjv  evepyeuip  Ttj^  yevetreeds.      aWa    o^   Kai   irepi  t<wv 

(FTOi-^etatv  KOi  Twv  €v  Toic  (TTot^eioii  tvvati€ti]v^  eir€iOTi  Tai/Tct 

WOCTtt    TOV    OvptlVQV     e^TjftTrp-atf     Kai     TWC     €V    Tt^     OVpaVtp      TTt- 

piioifTwv.  'Svpiavo^  oe  o  fxeya^  Kat  oi  fitr  mrrov  rjKoXou 
^tjKOTf*:  avTM,  irept  tov  xaXovfievov  Kvp'uiK  ovpavoZ,  TovTeerTt 
wepi  Tou  aio'iov  Kai  kvkXov  awiuiTOt  Trjv  frpay/iaTeiav  einii 
0ao't'  TJjv  eiriypa^^v  tu?  oparai  aKovovrei,  xai  oo  •Kfxpao€~ 
,  yofifvoi  'AXcfavopoy  \eyovTa  to¥  OKtyirov  eTrai  trepX  Koafio» 
Kat  TWV  airAwF  awfrnTotv. 

Fol.  1  b.  Ai'  o  Kcu  NiKoXaof  o  UepnraTTjTtKos  nepl  watfm 
TWV  Ttav  fv  Ttp  KO(T/j.M  fc'OT  cido?  iroif?Tai  \oyov'  aWa  Ktxl 
ai/Tos  'ApKTToreXtji  ev  rt^  TpiTtp  ^vfiX'uj)  xavT-i;?  -r^y  wpay^- 
yuaxeiaft  irepi  twv  er  avr^  Trj  wpayfxaTelq  €'iptjfiei*w¥  ev 
Kf^aXaiw  ctaaa(f>ajv,  Kav  Ttp  irpooifxi*^  Twr  ^XcretapoKoyuz^v 
cvTc  aK\a-)(ov  -rrepi  Koffjuoy  (pfjatv  eip^cr^at,  ov$'  owtwv  irept 
ovpavov  wi  Trepl  Kocfiov. 

Fol.  3  a.        EtTT*    0€    a^ioi'    €vttrtififiyatT9at    orr    wapa   to 
I  trvniOei  o     ApttTTOTeXfj^    VltSayopiKai^    wSavoTtjiTtv    ciy    •rijir 
eei^tv  €^ij(fnTo. 

Ibid.  O  oe  0av/jLo<Tios  VlToXefianK  fv  Ttj  ftoro^^Xt^ 
trept  ctatTTaffean  KaXios  direcei^evj  on  ovk  e*ai  irXelov^  r-oir 
Tpto^v  inatTTaiTttov. 

Fol.  3  b.  ToiJtwv  ce  TWV  vwoOeiretvv  Kai  nXofrli-ot  cv 
Ttfi  rrept  Kotfftov  fiCfxvijTai'  ^ou\6/x€vov  yt^p  xaTa  WXarmva 
cei^ai  Tfjv  aiitoTtjra  tou  ovpavov  <prf(j\v  ' ApitTToriXet  /xkv 
yap  ovcei^  ay  fttj  ttoi'Oc,  e?TK  avTOU  rds  uiroSeiTei^  ra?  irepi 
TOV  vefiTTov  ffw/uaro^  vwoSS^oiTOy  TnuVac  Xe'yoii'*  towtwi/  '/"/' 
owTfts  €^ovTtt}v  eiTfTot  1/  uidioTti^  KaT  apt0/xov'  Kol  6  nXa- 
XttH*  o«  €Tfpav  ooK€t  ovaiav  aTroctoovat  t^  ovpartto'  t't  yap 
KOT  etoos  irevTe  (TTOfyeia  Ttav  wevTe  tfw/itaruiv  vofxi^ct,  Kai 
TOjTe  oatdeKaeSpov  haypaipfv  aXXw^  *j  Ka-ra  tov  oupavof  oti*- 
^UTToi,  Kat  irav  erepoy  tov  ovpavtov  <Pti<7tv  virap-vew  Jrapa 
Ttjv  trvftafil^a^  Kai  to  oKToeSpov  Kat  to  tiKoadetfpoc,  Kai  toi» 
frvxXor,  fpavepov  OTt  Kai  kot  avToy  (Ttpov  inTi  KaT  ovaiav* 
KOI   OTt   ha'i   X]\ttTtvv  opi^€Tai   ttcktc  eirat  to  awXa   aoatiaTn 


Simplicius    de    Cwlo* 


591 


Cou.  C.  C.  C. 
Fol.  I  r.  'O  5e  Bfio^  '\afi^\i\u^  tov  okottov  wept  tw 
ovpavtov  fcai  ueiov  awft-arot  ev  Tocroi^  -Kottifjatieyov  trffn/Ka- 
^Iv'  Kal  <ptiiTi  Kat  TJji/  vepl  roS  KOfffAov  v\ov  Qetopiay  tot 
'jr€pt€-)(ofjLcyrjv  ev  avrrj  kot'  ovfTiav  Kal  covkevovffav  avrtj  t/jos 
€fr/a<T*av  ycvetrew^'  ov  fxtju  aXXa  xai  irepl  rtvv  ffrm^etW 
jcai  Twi*  ei»  Tors  ffTot^etms  €i/uirajO)^owT»7s  ovftxfLettn^.  etreioi^ 
Ta  TmavTu  dv  ovpavov  eiprjrai  kqi  tu)*"  kut  avrov  frept- 
oiTttif-  "^vpiafo^  c«  6  fxeyav  Kat  ot  fier  avrio  aKoXovdovvret 
avTio  irepi  tov  xvpjwv  ovpavov  Tovreart  aiciov  xai  KVK\<xf>o- 
prjTiKov  awfiaro^  TtJ*"  Tpaytxareiav  elvat  <paalv'  e»v  ti^v 
iTTiypathtjv  tuv  eotxev  airopXFTroiTfv'  Kal  ouk  a-jrodeYouevoi 
icep't  KotTfiov  Kat  twv  avXaw   rou  Kotifiov  trmfxaTUiv   Xcymrra 

TOV   aKOTTOV* 

Fol.  2  r.  AjueXff  rat  NiicoXaov  o  WepivaTtjTtKo^  etri 
fj^/ivtjfAai  irept  tov  iravroi  eiriypayj/a^  wept  TrafTwv  twk  a¥ 
Tip  Koa-fxtji  KOT  e^arj  vouiTai  tov  \oyov'  ctAXa  Kat  avTov 
AptaTOTekffi,  ev  Ttp  Tplrw  (iu^Xuv  TavTtfi  rijs  irpayuaTeias; 
•Ktpl  Twv  dv  avTn  Xeyotitvwv  avvijpTjiJ.€i'tos  cKQtuerMf  xat 
ev  Tu)  Twv  ^€T€<M}po\oytKwv  Trpootfxttp  ovoerepwOt  irept  Koatiou 
(haatv   eiptjK^yai. 

Fol.  4r.  '  Hirto'Tiiaai  te  a^iov  oti  irapa  to  trvvtfies  o 
ApitTToTeXri^  Tm$  lluBayopiKali  evdei^eaii/  elt  airooet^tv  e^ij- 
aaro. 

Fol.  4  8.  O  oe  Oavfxaa-Tos  IlToXc/iatos  ev  TfjU  vept  out- 
iTTaa'CftK  iiovo^vpX(0  koXws  aweofi^cv  art  ovk  e'tal  TrXe'tovei 
Ttov  Tpiwv   ota(rTa<r€wVw 

Fol.  5  s.  TovTbiv  o€  Twv  vwoOeceotv  Kal  VlXtoTtvo^  w 
Tip  wept  Koa-fJiov  ifivrifiovfoat'  ^vXrjSel^  yap  /cara  tiXaTotva 
airooei^at  Ttjv  tou  ovpavov  aioioTrfTa  <f>rj<rlv'  'AptffToTsXfi 
$iev  yap  ow^v  av  irpaytia  tit}  eiTti  avTw  Ta«  wxotfetrew 
TOW  ireMTTTow  trapacel^erai  avfiOTO^  Tailra?  Xeywv'  oTt  tov- 
Twv  oi»Ttt)i  eyowTw*/  eTrerai  ij  a'iC'toTtjs  ij  kot  apiOftov*  xal 
UXarwv  dt  aXXtjv  €MKev  owrtav  dTTooiotivai  t^  ovpavip  ei  yo.p 
t'lOotroia  Ta  trfitre  <yvi]fxaTa  twv  wevre  fTMfidrwu  vopi'vCet, 
Kat  Tif)  oiOvfKaei^ptit  liiEOtrypayets-Oai  Ka-ra  tov  ovpavov  omta~ 
fievov  TO  irav  (jbrjatv  aXAm  ovTt  irapa  ttjv  Trvpaft-ioOj  Kal  to 
OKTtifCpov  NQt  TO  etKoudeopoy  jrat  tov  Kvfiov  orjXov  OTt  Kal 
KaT  auTov  uXAo  tiji*  ovctav  ean'  r.nt  on  llXartui/  irein-f 
tlvat    Trt    rtTrXa    (jwfiaTa    fo^i'^ei    nara     rn     xerrc     rj-^^^^fiaTu 


£9:^ 


HiMplicius  de  Coeh. 


29     KO 


Ed.  Venkt. 
Kara   ra   trevTc  (r^»/waTa  ctjovecrfc   AevoKparrj^  6  yyritTw-i 
Tfttv  exetvou  ofuXijTwv,      £v  Tip  nrcpi  tou  WXartovoi  ^'ity 
fpwu  TuvTa.      **  Ta  fi€v  ovv  ^wrf  ouTto  ittjptjTai  ely   't^ea9    no 
jUC^V   vavTt)    otatpwu  M€\pt   ov  ewi   to.   vtvTe  aToiy^eTa  ad^ 
KoiTo'    a   Off    ne  vre    a'^ti^ara  xat   irevTE   aufuaTa    wiv/tic 
aiQfpa  Kui  TTvp  Kat  vcwp  xal  y*iv  kqi  aepa.^ 

Fol.  4  a.  ilejTrvp  Kai  avro-i  o  ^tvap-j^o^  oiuoXoyet 
<ptt}V  ovTW^'  "  €<rrw  Ti  TeTpa-ytDiw¥  Kai  tovto  TrepiayQ^Tu 
A'MxXfi)  ^evovTo^  Tov  CMOS  TrXeupou  ovep  y'tveTai  n^wv  to* 
KvXiifCpov'  evi  te  t^v  Trepta-^uaij^  irapaXXtiXov  rj-^Qtu  atf- 
fietov  Tt  Kol  ev  tctp  XP"*"!'  '''^  ''*'  ^fVf^ctov  oieXOeToi  TtftfOi 
T»/i'  yfxififirjf  Kat  TO  irapuXXtjXoypatijuov  ft?  to  auTo  exav- 
tj)(dw  iraXif,  o9ew  tjp^aro  ipepeaOai'  Troiet  yap  to 
■^^apaXXrJXoypa^fioy  KuXivSpoVj  to  ie  €¥€^iv  trif^eioir 
Ttf^   €v9eia^t  eXwa." 

Fol.  5  b.        lo-xeoK    oe    OTt    o     IlToXe/taioy    ev    t^ 
tTToiyeitov  l^v^Xup  Kat  «y    tws   oTrrucois  kcU    6  fieym 
TiJ'oy   Kai   ^€vap\tK  ti*   xa^t    Wjoo?    ti{v  trefxirrtjv  ovaiav   ai 
jofatf,    Tay   ctt    et/^eias   Kii/i;(rei?    twk  trxoij^ciwi',  "yiTOjuevwy  t^ 
en   KCiJ    ev  t^   wapa.  <f>uinv  ofTwv    Toirtpt    'io.l  ovtrtu    ev    tm 
Kara  (pvatv  vir^Xafiou  uvm. 

Ibid.      AXX    avTTj  r/  airop'uL  te^  viro  tov  ^evap)^ov   Wfi 
T€0etaa  fter    oXtya  XvOt'/iriTat. 

Ibid,  ill  fin.  '<)  ile  He^a^^os  oeuTepav  atroplai'  eirawop 
irept  T}}v  irenTTTtjv  ovaiav  fieTo.  rtiv  eirl  Ttop  a-rrX^v  ypagjjQ 
fiwy  a-nopiai'f  -rrpoi  to  oTt  toD  avXou  cwfiaroi  ovXtj  efft^M 
»f  KaTa  tpuatv  Ktvri(Ti<s  (prjat  yo.p  oti  ovctvi  Ttov  TetFaaptot^ 
OTtuwuur  i/tirj  vTmpYovTt  kotu  fpvaiv  eoTai  tj  etr  evveica 
Kivrjfft^'  aXX'  €v  fiof^  Tf^  y'tv€tT0at'  tA  oe  ytvofxevov  o9fk 
etntu  a7rX«$'  aXXa  hcto^v  toZ  elvai  xat  rod  fit}  eiyo4  iMnrep 
KQI  TO  Kivaufxeuov.  Kai  yap  tovto  etTTi  Mcra^i'  tov  Xi/dj- 
Otfaoftefou  TOTTOU  Kai  tov  TrpoKaTC'^^otievov'  Kai  CiTTw  fl 
yeveatv  avyyeurjv  t»7  Ktvtjatt  fiCTafioXij  xts  ovaa  Km  ntrri^ 
icai  dta  TOVTO  to  dxpofieyov  ai/ut  irup  ov  diafiev  Kvpiws  eifui 
TTvp'  aXXd  <l>epea9ai  dtpiKvoufierov  ftf  tov  oucetov  tottoi',  uirc- 
pavapav  oe  Ta  nXXa  koi  tipeptrjtxai'j  tots  yeyove  Kvp'tws  ''^i'lH 
e'ldoTToielTai  yap  tuvtii  rn  Qeau  Kovi^ov'  KUt  i;  7^  roTfl 
Kvpiiui  eoTi  yij,  ore  v<pi<TTaTat  rots  aXXow'  tok  ^  n€<xov 
Towov  firen^et'   to  vowp  (trii  o  atip'     to  /tev    vcasp   uTe   e 


i 

opmt 


ytmpliciuv   tie    Ctrlo. 

Cod.   C.  C.  C 

apxel  '^evoxpaTTp!  o  •yvrjaMTaTo^  avTov  twv  aKfXMTwv  €v  ria 
•jrepl  Xl\dToov<K  /3(f;>  ra'tJe  •yfia<f)wv'  *' '!'«  pev  nvv  ^*i>a,  ovTut 
StijpeiTo  ei?  iceay  tc  Kfxt  fiepi/  ttui'Th  toowov  ciat^air  ecuy  ei? 
Ta  Traj'Toji'  (XTOij^eia  u(ptK(To  tmv  ^wwv  a  ct/  Trfi/TC  try^tina-ra 
Kat  owfxara  wvofaaXjef  (U  tu&epa  xat  irvpy  KOt  vhtop  «ai  •y^r, 
Kat  aepO' 

Fol.  fi  r.  Qs  Kat  avro^  o  Hf  fap^of  ofxoXtyyet  ypa(f>Q}p 
ovrtu^'  '*  effTW  ti  TeTpaywvoir,  Kat  tovto  itcptayeaQo*  KVK\m 
ftf pot/aif?  ^ios  fl-Xevpa?  »/''"*^  a^tnv  tow  Ki/XiM}^fKoS'  effi  ce  TavTtiv 
irapaKK^Xov  v€pt<f?cpon€t'tjt'   <t>epe<r6tu  Tt   atj^e'tov,  Ktii   ev   taw 

ypOVn*    TOVTO    TO    <Tt}IX€tOV    TOVTtJV    Cl€^tTQ}    TtjV    'ypafl/JLt]^'      aJTO- 

KaOiffToadtM)  waXtp  €Ket  oOev  tip^oTo  d>^p€aBat'  -jrotfT  yap  ovTtxK 
TO  fxev  TrapctWijXoypnfxitov  KvXtv<ipov,  to  0€  <p€p6fi.tvoy 
trrjUetof  eiri   t»}v  tvBe'iaii  eXuca." 

Fol.  fi  8.  ItTTeou  oe  ort  o  rixoXcufrio?  ey  to*  vtpt  twv 
CTot)(^eiii)ii  (iv^X'iiy,  Kal  fv  xoiv  otTTtKois  \ai  IlXoirti'ov  o  fjityen 
Kat  ^evap-)^oi  €V  TaiS  irpo?  tt/i*  Trejuirrijc  ovmuv  airopiatv 
Tt}V  fiev  ew  evOeia^  Kivtjtnv  twv  aTOfj^eiivv  yiioiievtjv,  en 
Kat  ev  T(f>  Trapa  tpvati'  ovtwv  Toirtp  aAAu  iifiTro)  tiov  KaTa 
tpv<Tiv  aTetX^<PoT(vv  cTvai  <patrti>. 

Ibid.  AXXtt  TOVTO  tc*  atropov  fifT  oXiyou  ws"  To5 
E^n^^ot/    irpojiaXXoft^i'Ov    diaXvaofiai. 

Fol.  9  r.  O  ce  ^evap^o^  dtvTcpay  a-jropiay  €v  toi?  trpof 
T»;y  TreMTTTi^i'  ot/erta*'  oTToprjiucpots  /iCTa  nji-  tw»'  aVXaJi'  ypafi- 
fjtiof  airopfi'  irpoi  to  tov  uttXoi'  adJ/tiaTos-  dirX^y  ett/at  Kara 
0v<Ttf  Ti/f  Ktvriatv'  ovSev't  yap  <f>nat  twi/  Tetraaputu  trToi-)(€ii6V 
rf  oiOTi  KaTa  <pv<rtv  etTTic  r]  etr  evQflas  Kiv^ais^  dXXd  yivo- 
tiet'Wf  fAopov'  TO  te  ytvofxevov  qvk  e<TTtv  dirXm'j  dXXd  row  re 
elvat  Kat  tou  jii;  fTrai  fiera^u'  KaGdirep  itoi  Tti  Kivovfievov 
Kal  yap  tovto  effTti*  et*  k€V€o  tou  te  eTrtXafx^avotievov  tojtow 
Kat  tou  •trpoKareyofj.fvov'  Kai  etrrt  trvyyevev  *}  •/ei'fffis  Ttj 
KivtjfTei  fiera^oXij  Tip  ovtra  vat  avTtj  Kttt  Std  tovto  to  awi- 
<pep€a6ai  Xcyofteviw  vvp  ov  tpaciv  ftvat  KUp'ttav  vup  dXXd 
ytiiOfievov  eXOov  cTri  -roi/  o'tufiov  tottov  Kat  t'TrtwoXatxnt'  Toti 
oXXot;  Kal  ripefj.^<jaVf  Tore  yiveaQai  Kvpitvv'  el^oTroititrGat 
yap  avTo  KaO  ocrov  eari  Kov<pov  t»)  $(ff€i  rnvrtt'  Kal  »i 
ytf    ToTe  Kvptw^i  cotI  yi)   otqv  uTroarij  rotK  aXXoif    Kat  to 

tA€<rOtf    CTTlCr^^     TOTTOf     KOt     TO      v6wp     Kol     O    tt^p'      Ku't      TO     (JLCV 


6H 


Simpficiue   de   Caltt, 


£d.  Vbnet. 

Xotv<^  MC  T^  'y^'  v<pi<TTaTai  ce  Tip  aept *  o  oe  a^p  oTe 
etpt^avei  Tip  vdaTi  t/(p'nrTaTnt  oe  tic  wvp'i'  fbvurl  toIvuv  oti 
Toy   OTrXoy    crw^oToy  airX^i*    elvai    t»;m    Ktvriatv   ffaxa    0L^ir, 

/Avvtf)  avfxfie^tjKov  ejriv  ^  Ktvriaii'  it  roiitui/  o^t  xai  Ton  tjv^ 
vTrap\ov(Ttv  atrooidoyat  Ttva  Kivtftriv  oTrX^f,  Tfjv  KuxXtp  airi>> 
oicovui  del*  eiwep  at  vvo  avrat  fiouai  atrXai  tf  Tt  KUKXtp 
Kul  t)  ew  evdeiai'  i/  d  eir  evSeiai  toov  ytvotievtitv  e<TTt  xai 
ov  Tttiv  VTrapjfovTwr  Teaaaptuv  ovk  avsixoTtov  ovu  ajrootutrft 
Tts   T^    ftev   TTvpi    T»yi/   KvaXtp   to*?    6     aWotv    Ttfv   tfpeMtav. 

i'ol.  Ga.  Airopet  oe  traXiy  o  'Zevapjfp^  ovk  avayMalof 
tlvai  keyaii'f  t'l  toTs  air\o7$  koi  <pvaiKOi\-  uwMOtriv  i]  <f>va'iv 
oVeowKci/  atrXas  Kif»;(Tfif  o'uceia?  Kat  0'i''y'yei'eiri  ctd  tooto 
ijdtj  Kai  TQtv  dirXai^-  Kiv^aeaiv  ajrooedoaBat  a?rXa  <bvatKU 
awfiaTu'  ovce  yap  <TvvOeTa  t^s  (TuvQeTOi's  ajreotiMceV'  *jv  yap 
uv   avTofv    irXr^oi    aveipov'    awetpoi    yap    civiv    a\    aviSeToi 

Fol-  6  b.  Tawras  fiev  ovv  xot  evtrTatren  tow  ^€fap^ou 
xa!  Ti&tj<Ti  KOI  \v€i  6  'A\e^avdpo%'  Xcyfi  de  xa't  aWfjv  o 
^evapyoi  Toiavrvfv'  ti/v  kukXij}  Kivnaiy  aduvarov  elvai  avXou 
otDfiaTO-i  KUTa  <piiaiv'  iir€icrj  ev  toiv  OTrXoiy  trw^afrtv  oiiouy- 
ixepetrtf  ovatVt  l(TOTayy  eel  elvai  tto  vto  to  fieptj.  1 1'  oe 
Ttf}  kvkXm  Trt  TTpos  TO  K€VTpov  fiepfj  f^paouTepti  e<rTiv  T(5p 
vpov  TJ/v  wepttpepeiav  etirfp  ev  Tip  oilry  ypovfp  eir*  eXoT- 
Tovo^  oiacTTr/AiaTOf  i»i»eiTai"   (cnc  ti}  (rtpaiptf   de    ot   wfpt    Towy 

VoXovi    KI/kXoI   fipaaVTepnV  TWV  WOppiOTepO)  KlVOUVTOt'    TttyuTTcg 

&e  vavTtov  o  fieytartK  Twic  7rapaXX7fXa*v. 

Ibid.  Taura  fxtv  o  Hci'a^j^os  avTedtiK€  irpos  ray  firo^e- 
<r«s  Ta$  liir'  'A^^crTOTeXofs  Xt}<^e'taa^'  twv  vitov  ce  tk  oo^tft^ 
im  voKel,  9rjp«vT]ijSf  tv<rTa<jeii  Ttva^  tov  Hera/>^of  vnreXBtot* 
Kai  Tivtt^  t'Ttpas  ToiavTas  irpotT^Tatpiaafitvosy  tou  AptcTToTeXov^ 
kUTt'tyopoii  av€<f)at'tiy  tou  imev  ckottov  airavrn  erffTtjaa/xevtK  cU* 
<^r^iv  arrtxict^at  TOf  Koafj^ov  fpdapTov,  <Dcnrep  a^Xoi*  ti  /ueyot 
■jrapa  tov  kt'kttov  Xv\y\/ofi.€vo^^  ei  KTiaTtjv  avrov  uovtov  tw¥ 
dAiapTwv  arrodfi^ai  Kal  ovtievov  a<pOapTov'  via  0€  TavTriv  Ttjf 
e<ptatv  Toti  vir  ApttTToT^Xous'  fVTavOa  XeyouevoK  aumXeyeiv 
eirt^«^»,  (iia  fxaxpMV  ^vf^Xiwv  eXirl^wv  ov  /lovov  Ttjt  irXi7du( 
T0W9  avatcO^Tovi  e/cirXi/^cif,  aXX  tw  oT^oi  TrXeioroi't  ajro- 
ijTp€<ptiiv  Kn\  fiaXtaTtt  xovs"  ireTratvfVfittioti^  airo  t»/?  avayruveto^ 


Simpliciu*  de  CceUi. 


595 


Co».  C,  C.  C. 
tiowp  OTfl  av  (irttToKaX^t}  /lev  Trj  yii'  dpiaTaTOi  oe  Tt^  irt/jai 
TO  ovp  Tov  airXoM  awfiaTtK  <pi}a\v  airXi)y  elvat  Kara  <pvuiv 
T^v  Ktvijaiv,  yj/evoot  e<rrtv'  Ocoeiicxat  yap,  ws  ov  ry  okti 
aXXd  Tifi  yivofievfp  trvfipefstjKeK  eartv  rj  KivijerK*  ei  tie  apa  yj)^ 
KOI  Toi(  eidtj  ovaiv  a-jrocidovai  Ttva  Kivijatv^  Kai  tout^v 
airXtjv,  Ttjv  eyKVKXiov  dvooidovat  xptj-  ciirep  ova  fxovai  auToi 
airXal  tj  re  KVKXtp  koi  rj  ctt  Cfdeia;  ywo/ievwv  CirriVf  aX\ 
OVK  oiTtav  Twv    Tfo-ffapiyi',    ovk  ac   ovv   aroTrws  airocoirj  tk 

T^    WVpi    Ttllf    iyKVK\iOV*    TOIf    Off    oXXfHS    Tpltrt,    TtJV   i^p€fi'iav. 

Fol.  9  6<  Airurrei  o«  iraXiv  F^^opj(tK  owe  avdyKtiv  elvai 
XcycMM  ei  Ton  airXoi^  (bvaiKoii  trw/iaatv  airXn;  atrooeoMxt 
Ta^  o'tMiav  Kai  (rtryyevet^  Kiftjaets  >;  (puaiif  tfot)  dia  tov  Kai 
Tais  airXais  Kitniae^tv  aVXu  airadccarjicei'ai  tu  <pv<TiKd  crwjuara' 
ovoe  y<^p  avvQeaiv  Toit  auvOcToi^  aTroccoa/K€v'  riv  yap  av 
airetpov  ai'Twv   to   xX^^ov'    airupoi    yap    e'ttriv   a'l    ffVfOtToi 

Fol.  10  8.  Tavrav  fiev  ovv  Ta$  ivtrTwreii  tow  l^dpj^otf 
iv  Tot/Tou  nfOi  T't$tj(TtT€  Kai  ^tiXvtTev  6  'AXt^av^poi'  Xc'yei 
oe  Kat  aXX>;j'  o  "SfvapjfOV  Totauriiv'  Trjv  xvkX/^  KtvtjfTiu  dov^ 
twixoM  a-TrXovv  aw^a  eiva*  Kara  (pinriv'  eiirep  eu  finv  toij 
oTrAotv  aiuit-amv  Ofiowfiepeaiv  ovaiv  Krora^i;  TraKTV  ra  fiopia 
etFTic,  ev  tie  Tip  Kt/fcXf/i  to  tt^s  Ty  nevrprp  del  ^paourepa 
Tcuc  Trpoy  Tr|  wepitpepeia  e(TTiy%  €t7rep  ev  Tifi  avTto  "j^povtp 
eXaTTOca  iccvot/i'Ta*  Twy  iropptoBet't  <*»*  Ta^iara  iraKTowf  o 
fityttrroi  t^v  wapaXXiiXtav. 

Fol.  1 1  r.  'YavTa  niv  o  'B>€vapyoi  avrtiptiKtv  irpon  Ta9 
TOV  'AptffToTeXov^  -TrapaXtjfpOeiaa^  viroBeaen'  Tw  5e  Ttv 
«0  :^fjLmy  to^tj*:  W9  eoixe  Otjpartfi,  Twtf  too  Hci>a/3)(ou  Ttvav 
evffTatrets  vyrofiaXofxevoSy  Kat  aXXav  ToiawToy  a6pot<ra^t  kut^-^ 
yopos  di'eou  too  't\piarroTfXov%'  okoitov  fiev  to*'  oXov 
eviTTifTafA€vo^  tvi  <pa(jiv  tpdapTov  d-jrooel^at  tcim  Koaftov,  nij 
ennOXuv  Ti  fieya  irapn  tou  dtjmovpyov  Xtj^j/ofievov  ei  oe 
(pOupTov  fidvov  avTov  diro^ei^ri  tov  o^fxiovpyov,  tAr}WVo^  oe 
ti<p0af/Tov'  6td  TXiVTtiv  06  t^v  TTpoOvuiav,  TO(S  etfTovOa 
XtyofxeroK  vird  Tou   Api(rraT(Xovi  dvrtXeyeiif   irporiGcTai  vtd 


Vol.  II.  No.  6. 


'  Cod,  ^iapTOf, 
4G 


I9t 


Simplieiu*  de  Ctrio. 


Ed.  Ven'kt. 

Twu  twoiJtiui'  Xr/pcuf.  w?  ay  aye^eraoTa  /ivvovTa  ra  ev  Totrov- 
TCKj  ynafhevra  ytipraiVf  ex  tow  avTiKeyeiv  fxoi/oy  Trpoi  T9jm 
ApvXToTtXotK  do^avi  trodticK  dvTiTroitjirijTCU  t^  cvyypct^ei* 
iytv  ce  olba  Ttiv  Totavras  "TrporreTetai  tuerirep  tow?  koXov/xckoc/v 
Aoeovi^KK  KffirofC  av^ct»'  irapa  TOif  a»^ia0f/rois  fcai  vo^ir^fiVar 

1  tlioxf  T(  €y  aXf-yai?  tjfuepatv  arroafieaOoi.  ku'i  ftoi  rtjv  \p%<rTo- 
TcAot/9  irpayu.aTci.av  cta<ra<prtaaa0ai  TrpoSefieyfp  eco^c  T-a 
ovvara  ^rj  n-apibcfv  xa?  enTTd<T€*v  tow  avopo^  eKoj^Xoutraj  Twi' 
xnracoetJ^ewi'  fiev  ot/oeVai  Tfpi*  oa-jraioci/Tcui'  rovy  ael  To»y  f«otv 
^alpocTOs  >rai  ^aXciraii'orraS  tiri  Tm?  TuJy  TraXmwi'  ai^pwif 
Aifais*  cTt  ^  Tot/s  iiyov/i€tfoui  rtfiuv  to  ^tttw,  el  rov  oitpavov 
ftlt  ^uffi  'yfTO/ucfov  vpo^  vTnfpta-iav  Ttop  dyOpwTTtavt  nrjcev 
vofi'itwcty  ^Xeiv  i^^a'tperov  wpo^  to  Tfjtc,  oXA  o/iotcuc  avTou 
TouToty  tp&apTov  rf^fwvrat'  ovroi  yap  Tvt  eatrrwv  irtpt  0«ov 
co^ti  trvftj^ivew  Tairratt  to?  einrrdtreiv  vofii^oyravt  ^*a  /neyaXtft 
ayovtri  Ti/ifiSy  ovoev  fxev  ovre  tovtwv  tidoT^  ovre  twv 
'ApiaToriXovsif  irpm  a  ToX^wffi  tos  rwauTas  ev<fTd<T€ts 
eirdytty'  aWa  irpoi  aXX>;Xot^  TuXavTevoirreVy  Kat  irpoc  tffxav 
navywfxevot,  oti  tu  Ttay  dH\o<To<pwv  dyaT€Tpairrat  ooyfiaTa* 
TOVTWV    ovv   j(aptWy    Kal    out    tovto  €j(OVTav    UKotjv  paw,    <nu 

•  iy  ij  Tou  'ApuTTOTeXoiK  TTfpt  oi'/pavov  irpayfiaTeia,  Kat  if 
0tfO(re/3fr9    ire-pi   tov  KaOdXov  tyyota   eyrl   ros    dp^aias  evSo^ov 

'  *yvw^i}9  aVc'Xecro?  fielvetevt  eoo^e  fxoi  koi  Tavras  xar  cvarao'Ett 
rrpoBeivai  Kal  Xvffat  KUTa  T»}y  e/xairrot/  o6yap.iv'  7rpcira>^- 
trrepoy  yap  e^jcer  av/jifiil^trety  fierd  twv  t*^  trpayiiaTe'tai 
wofivrifiaTifTTMy  Kat  TOf  eyaToaeK  icai  Tti?  Xucreic  avTW. 
eioe'  TTou  oo^w  >faxa  xov  aiwpos  toutov  airoTOfitorepoy  ^p»/a"0ai 
Tift  Ao'/^f  I*"?  axa^iufToi  ^t^i9'  ovde  yap  eaTi  fiot  af}i>ta 
Vir  ^po(  TOV  avopa,  ov  ouoe  o>//ei  cy^^"  vot€  aWa. 
frpwTOi*  /ier  tijw  arcpt^rj  tcpiaiv  a^iov  eirtSetwu  t^  fiefia~ 
Oi/KOTt  wapa  ApitTTOT^Xovi,  Kat  toiv  eKcivov  vvop.tfij/iaritmui\ 
fIfTt  iTdv  wap'  eKcivtev  endBofiev'  ovce  dvo  Mcrarapov  ml 
'Hpoiouitwv  frai  rtui'  toiovtmv  dtpUeTO  i^/xtv  aKpi^trrtpo^ 
TOU  ApiffTOTfXoi'V  Ttjv  iTcpl  Ttltv  ovTwv  aX»^0«a^'  TTOtdevOeKy 
Kat  ovK  evXal^rj&vis  vepi  'ApurroTtXaw  ypa^iv'  o»  t^ 
Te^vi)?  aifTJfs  eopav  fxdXXov  nal  iraTepa  koXwv  tk  ovk 
ay  afxapTtj.  Kai  or*  T€-)(yaTepov  fjv  eiriOKtaacu  Ttj  twv  trapa" 
\o^tafi.iov  ofiiy\ri  to  aXtfOe^'  Kal  oti  ttj  7roi«tX(^  Twy  Xvtrewr 
wirtTrfoeios      ApwToTeXi^v     eirurKtaaai      to     aXrjun      TroXXew** 


Shnpticius  de 

Cod.  C.  C,  C. 

troKwrrolyruv  /ivfiKitvv  ov  /xotmv  t^  TtXijOei  KartnrX^TTttv 
eXirtaai  toi/s"  avorjToui  aWa  Rac  aTTOToeirctv  olfiat  Towff 
irXcicTTow  Ktu  tuiXuTTa  tow  KaOaptwrepovs  Tyv  twv  oia}d>\tf- 
yiw:^''  <p\r)i'aX(l>wy  evrev^fttt^  umre  ayeiriKpiTa  ftetvavTa  to. 
ypafbevTa  ex  tou  irpo-i  ApitTTOTtXriv  fiovop  avTcnretv  Toaaura^ 
aeXloa^'  do^av  trofp'ia^  irapaer^naOat  T<p  ypd^vrt'  eyto  Se 
oloa  TO  Totavra  tiov  ToXfitjMaTtnv  watrep  tovs  ' ActaviSiK 
KaXoufievovt  jo/frouy  avOciv^  wttpa  toT?  avotjToii  oo^avra, 
tif  oXiyan  ^ju^/xwt  aTrrxr^irdevTa.  Kai  tijf  'AptcrroTcXow 
irtpi  ovpavov  trpayfiaTciav  <ra<prjvi<rat  trpoOefievip  irara  to 
ouvaTov  too^e  fit}  "irapteeiv  tw  Tovi>€  rov  ayopo^  eFtrraffciC 
61^0)^X011(70?  Ttou  p.ev  irevaioevnei/wv  ov^v<ty  tmv  i^e  awatSevTuv 
Tovv  Te  aet  ^fi'oi?  ^aipovrn^  teal  Twy  irnXatwv  nvdpav  t^ 
evKXeiff  ^pvvofifvov^'  ««i  ert  fievrot  Toy?  Seoae^eh'  o'lofxei'ow 
idv  TOY  ovpavov  irpof  vwtjpefriaf  ws-  <f>amv  Ttov  avBpwirofv 
yeyovoTfi  ^ip)#f  e^ntperov  f^etf  Trpu^  to  vtto  aeArjvrjv  vofnioxxiv 
KCii  djOupTov  Kat  avTov  ofuitttK  TOVTois  vtrnXttfifittvunrtv*'  outo* 
yttp  twfijyopot  avTiov  t^  irtpt  Oeov  005^  tus  €V(TTa<T€tv  Ttii/roy 
oiofievoi  ^la  ueydXtK  ayouai  tiju^s'  ovofv  filv  ov^  rovrtov 
eiooTtfff  ovi)€  Tiov  ApujTOTeXovi'  en  fiaXXou  Trpo^  a  ToXfioKfiv 
avTai  evi(TTa(T0ai'  aXX^Xot^  oi  OpuXXouvre^  koi  irpot  i^/aos 
veavtevofievui  oTt  to  twv  <piXoco<ptt}v  avaTCTpairTat  doyttara* 
TovTtav  ovf  €tv€Ka  Kai  twv  euKoXorepav  cyovtwv  Ttfv  uko^v^ 
Ka\  Ttfy  Tov  Apt<rrOTeXov^  ir€pt  ovpavov  itpaytxa.Tc'iav^  xal 
T^v  Oeacefirj  vtpi  tov  watrroi  evvotav  sttI  Ttj^  TraXaio?  emXciai 
pevetv  dveXeyicTov,  eiio^e  fioi  koi  rawTOi-  TrpotT0t}vat  tuk  €v- 
ffraffe*?  xal  dtaXwrat  Ka-rd  Tijy  ifi^v  Buvap4v'  oiKnoTtpov  yap 
etpavif  TO  To7v  viro/nprjfxaiTi  Trj^  wpaytxareia^  cvvTeTayOai^ 
Kol  to?  ei«TTa<Tcip  jcal  to?  Xco-ch'  avTtov'  ci  oe  'jrov  fpapeitfv 
wpof  TOV  avdpa  tovtov  Tpa-^VTCpov  airopp'nrTetv  Xoyov, 
/ttjj  vefteatf  tiv,  ov  yap  erxTt  fioi  Trpo*:  tok  avvpa  (jitXoveiKia 
ov  ovce  Oeaadfiewyi  6i6a.  ww-iroTe,  dXXd  ■jt/wtoi'  fiev  efj-fieXr} 
viKtjv  a^ioy  e-KiTidevai  TOVTip  rro  vap  'ApitrroreXow  txiv  Kai 
TWV  eqrfytjTtvv  uotov  fiaOovri  etirep  Tt  apa  irepi  tovtwv 
fitetidStjKev'  ov  yap  dvo  Mevdvtpov  kui  Hpwotavov  Kai  Ttov 
Toiovrwv    ijXBev    »)/*»»'   dxpif^trrtpov   ' A pttxToreXov^    rti    inpi 


598  Simplicius  de  Cceh. 

Ed.  Venet. 


Fol.  8  a.  Oi  yap  irefji  Ev^^oif  Kal  KaKtinrov  wttott^c ktcv 
a<Pa'ipm  avf\iTTOvaa<i  ofAOKefrpov^  T<p  Trarri,  oi  eK^ivwv 
kireyeipovv  <raJ^eii'  to  (prnvofxeva  vept  to  Kevrpov  fitm  too 
wavTo^  Xeyoyres  KivfiffOai  TraVav  tx»?  <r(paipcK'  Tuiv  o€ 
axoaraffcan'  ^a^  wptyiroota fxiavy  teal  tmv  {l><uvoii.€vwy  cTrfpiyfi^t^ 
KOI  ava7ro^i<rfiwv,  Kat  ava)fxa\iiav  ev  avroii  ^MivofievrnVy  ras 
oirm$  fi.^  dvva/J.€VM  xara  tw  VTroBetieii  eKeivai  afroOiooitai' 
eta  TovTo  irept  tov  ''Iirirapj^ov,  kui  eirt^  exeltny  avy^povov^ 
Ka\  fier  avTov  o  IWoXenato^  eKKCvrpovi-  tripalpas  icai  cxi- 
kvkXov^    i'Tre&evTOf    ^ta    to    to    //€»'  ovpauta    -rravra    ir^pt    to 

TOU  travTm   KCVTpOV  tltj    ^OuXoflfVOl,   TWV  O    tiptJUeVWV  WpOT€pO¥ 

Tat  a'lTtas  uw   exchwy  irupaXritpdeuTaSf  ovTot  jcara  tos   vrr<^ 

Fol.  10  b.      'O    ce   v€tK   ovToai  Kopa^  ftaWov  ce   Ko\oi<K., 

aKpavra    yapvwv    w$    oKtjOio^    t^io^   Tpos    opfi)(a   Oetov    Kara 

ilii/^poy,  Kat  trpos  tci    cvrauOa  vrr    '  t\pt<TToTe\ovs   e'tpijfiiya 

y^pwVf  TrpwTtiv  tVfTTaaiv  ewaytt   rrjv  rou   js,€vap^ov   Tptrijw 

woTtBei^. 

Fol.  12  b.     Kal  Ttjtf  Aevapyov  ert  ettrravtv  7rpo<p€povTotm 

Fol.  l6  a.      O  Toiuvv  BeioraTO^  TWaTwv  to  ev  tw  KOtrtxtp 

wavTa    ^wyra    <TTo^a^ofieif<y%y   koi   €<peaiv  e-)(ovTa   twv  o'f^eiwie 

ayadmvy  Kat  *ita  tovto  xal  powijv  wpo^  ms  oticciar  oKoTiiTo^, 

it«(    ^pn^     Ttt     apiOTa     Ttuv     •jrKfiGiuiovTtiyv   auToti     auffUtTOtm 

■  ••  \     •  •  I  •  '      ,       •>  % 

tpvtriKQK    Kat    ov    Kara   irpoaipf&iv  yiviyfxevtjVf   o/utoioH*  eyubo   kcu 

Tfji'  yiju  Kai   TO  ttup  irpoy  tA  ouf«ia  e^pera  Kivtwueva  Kat   oca 

TOVTO     yiveaBat     eKartTov    ■Trpoy    to    oiceiov    fptjaiv'    y'tv^aOtu 

yap  evQa  peTTtt  d>aftev. 

Fol.  l6  b.      Kai   TTtvs    KoXuif   av   Sonets  Xeyetv'    ovTutf    o 

XlXaTO)*''    TO    arot    xai    to    kutw   ov    KVpms   ev   tiv   kuOoXou 

XeyiaOat  fo/ti^wi''  oi    o  Kai  to  kov<Pov  iv  avTtji  xat  to  ^apv 

airetwev.  mxt  o  StfiioTtov  xat  roi  tioi?  ttXc/oto**  'ApiaToreX** 

irpoaK€iHtVMt    €v   TouTift   yefxffv    t<5c  tov    nXaTwros    pfjfxaTwv 


SimpiicittJt  de  Calo. 


599 


Cod.  C.  C,  C. 

<pvatta^  Ttav  ovrwv  ireTmicevfJLevo^  xat  OfA^K  ovk  aioovfiei-oi 
■jrepl  AptffToreXov^  ypa<petv  0¥  avTits  atpidpvfia  t^  oet^ori^ 
TOi'  fiaXKov  o€  fiaTcpa  koXwv  t'is,  ovk  ar  OftdpTot'  xal  on 
cctvtK  tTV(TKiaaat  Ttj  ayavt^  tqjv  TrapaKoyiO'tiaiv  Ttjv  aXtjOetav^f 
iroWa-^ov  o€  Kat  o  uofbwTaTo^  ai/Tov  Koi  twv  c^tiytjTav 
avTov  ^pevOverat. 

Fol.  14  s.  Oi  yap  vept  EiJdofoi'  Kal  Kaktirvov  «ai  fJi^XP^ 
ApufTOTeXov^  ray  aveXiTTOvaa^  c(palpai  viro0€/uei'oi  ofnoKev- 
Tpow  T(p  itci'tI  oi  SKeii^v  evetpoivTo  trtal^tiv  to.  tp<uv6fi€va, 
trepi  fteuTot  to  toiJ  iravroi  Kevrpov  iraaa^  Xeyovre^  Mpet<TO€u 
Tus  (Tfpaipas'  twv  oe  avoyeiav  Koi  -repiyemv  xat  twv  ooKOVtn-tar 
wponro^iiTfitaw  Kai  uTTocterfAOiv^  kou  rwv  eu  raiy  Jtiwi/ffetrt  <paivo- 
/lei'cm'  avu}fxa\io}V  raf  nirfa?  ovk  uT^uovrc^  irar*  SKeiva^  ra; 
viro0eaet9  axooioowii,  ouxxm  touto,  oi  trepl  toi*  "Iirirapji^oi' 
Kai  emt  Trepi  toutow,  inii  m^t^^  tovtov  o  flToXejuaiov  tos 
tKc'tfOV  (j<ha'tpa^  Kal  tov%  eiriKVKKou^  vweOeTo  ad  tovtwv'  to 
fiev  wepi  TO  Tov  irairro^  xeirrpopf  iravTa  Ktvetavai  to  ovpavia 
wapaotoovTe^'  twv  o«  eiptjfxefwv  TrpoTcpov  to^  a'tTtas  Tat 
i/TT    €K€'ivwv   TrapaXetcbSeia'ai   ovTot  kot    avra^  tm  vTroQ€<Tei% 

^  ?  ' 
aVOClCOVT€%* 

Fol.  19  s.       O    vtapoi    >7M(i'     otn-os      ko^^'     A^^Aol'     oe 
**  KoXoiO¥     a/rpaKTO     'yupvofueyos'     A109     Trpo?     o^ptj^a     fietoiii 
Kara    tqv   fxeya\opp*jfxova     W'woapov'    *rai    wyaov    Ta    evTovQa 
T^  'ApiffToreXei  prjBevTa  wap€K^v6fAevo<;  trparrfv  /Ji€v  €V<rTa<rtv 
evayti  tijv  tou  Sevap^of  TptTrjv  i<7ro/ia\Ao/i«i'09. 

Fol.  23  r.      Koi  xoy  'E^ap^ou  te  eiHffTafievov. 

Fol.  SO  r.  O  Toivvy  deioxaro?  nXaTtof  ^wwra  TrawTo 
xa  ev  x/jff  KotTfitit  O^aftevot,  icai  etheaiv  twv  o'lKeiuit/  ayaQtov 
vyovraj  xat  ctn  tovto  kui  poirr}v  eirt  xav  owteias  oA,axi/Tay 
TfToi  Tu  ■)(^py]atfia  xaJw  TrXijcta^oifxaiM  auxoiy  avTo<puii  trw/iaxa 
Kat  ot)  xaxa  Trpoaipeatv  yivoficvat  ojuutW  olce  kuI  xr/t'  'y^K 
Kat  TO  wvp  eiri  oixeia  e<p€Td  (bepofievay  nai  6td  tovto  (iap^lv 
exatTTov    ir/>09    xo    eai'xoi'    (hrjaiv,    ^apeiv    "yap    cmtov   peictw 

Fol.  30  B.      Kai  ir^    «aXw(    av   ifyotxo    Xe'ycir'    ovtcw    o 

*  r.  with  the  New  ColL  MS.  nf  dx^"*- 
^  *  In  the  mw|[iti  Art  tm  voiictXtf  thc  trvjuirXoKTic  ^iric  'A^ivrorAtr*  ffvyflaicXairf  r 

'  Should  be  uir«vi>4t<r^M>^ 


594  Simplicius  de  Cceh. 

Ed.  Venet. 
^avei  fiev  t^  yri'  v<^<rTaTai  oe  r^  aept'  o  oe  a^p  ot€ 
e^^ai'sc  Ty  voan  vifiitrraTat  5e  t^  irvp'i'  <pri(rt  T-oiwuv  art 
TOW  awXov  trtofiaTOi  airXriv  elvat  Ttiv  KimjiTu'  Kara  <f>vat¥f 
^tvoes  dirocelKvuTai*  ov  yap  t^  virdp'^ovTi,  dWd  t^  yivo- 
fxevtp  avfipepijKov  arrtv  tj  KivrjffK'  ei  Toivvv  oei  Koi  roiv  i§Stf 
virdpyovtTiv  diFwioovai  Tiva  Ktvi^txiv  dirK^Vy  t^v  kvkK^  diro- 
^ilovai  Oct*  eiirep  ai  ovo  twrai  /uovoi  dirXai  ij  re  KvkKqt 
KOi  ^  eir  evOvia^*  fj  o  ev  euOeiai  Tcoy  yivoiiewav  etrrl  Kod 
ov   Twv  vvapypvTwv  TetTtrdpiiav'  ovk  dirsucorwi   cZv  mro^wrei 

Tiff    T^     ILW    irVpl     Ttiv    KVK\tp    TOlS     S*    oXXofff     T^V    ^p€fllav, 

Fol.  6  a.  'Atropei  oe  trdXty  o  Sevap)(Oi  ovk  dvaytctuoit 
tXvai  Xe'yioF,  ei  Toiff  dirXo7$  Kai  <^v<Tuc6i^  <rwfMatTtv  ij  <pvtrK 
aVfiouMcev  dirXat  Kiv^ets  ouceiay  koI  ffvyyevei^,  ^td  tovto 
1701/  Kal  Taiff  (XTrXaiff  Kiv^aeatv  dwoceodaOai  dirXa  (bvtriKd 
tTfUfiaTa'  ovoe  yap  avvOera  t^s  avvdeTOK  aireowKev-  rjv  yap 
av  avTwv  irXtjOoi  atretpov'  avetpot  yap  eitriv  at  avvGeroi 
iftvijoeK. 

Fol.  6  b.  Tavras  fiev  ovv  Tas  evtrrdtrew  tou  ^eifdp-)(Ou 
Kai  Ti6ij(Ti  Kal  Xvei  o  'Ake^avopoi'  Xe'/ct  St  Kal  aXXijv  d 
Mevap'xoi  ToiavTrjv'  tiJi/  kvkX^  Ktvtjaiy  dovvaTov  etvai  dirXou 
awfiaTos  KaTa  <pwriv'  eireto^  ev  tok  awXais  atvfuurtv  ofUHo^ 
fiepeaiv   ownv^    (crora^^   oei   eXvai    vavra  xd   fteptj.      «v   de 

T^    KVxXtp     Ta     wpOS     TO    KCVTpoV    fJiCp^    fipa^VTepU    ivTlV    TWV 

vpo9  TIJI*  trepttpepeiav  etvep  ev  r^  avr^  Xpovip  eirl  eXaT- 
Tocoff  StaaT^fiaToi  KtveiTai'  xdv  Tp  tr<paip<f  6e  ot  trept  tows 
iroXovs  KVKXot  (^paovTcpov  twi/  •7ropporrepa>  Kivovvrai'  Tdj^wra 
oe  irdvTwv  6  iieyurTOi  Tti>v  •jrajoaXXiJXft'i'. 

Ibid.  Tavra  ixev  o  Seuap'^oi  avreQijKe  vpos  ra^  woBe- 
aevs  Tos  wir'  'A/WCTToreXows  XritpBeitrai'  rwi'  vewv  Se  T(S  ed^r/ij 
wt  SoKcU  Bijpeun^i,  ev<rrd<Tei9  Tiva^  tov  Sevdp^ov  vveXOeov 
Kal  Ticas  ertpa^  Tmai/ras-  irpocreraipurd/iivoi,  tov  'ApuxTtyreXovi 
KOTijyopos  ave<pdvrj,  tov  fiev  o-kottov  dtravra  eyartjtrdfieiVK  ftis 
(brjffty  dTTOoet^at  tov  Koafiov  (pOapTov,  wnrep  a^Xoi'  Tt  /uc'ya 
irapd  TOV  Krifrrov  XrjyjfOfAevos,  ei  KTtartjv  avTov  fxovwv  twf 
d>OapTmv  diroSe'^at  xat  ovSevos  d<p$dpTov'  Etd  Se  ravTijv  t^v 
e^etrtv  toiv  i/V  ii/JiffToreXow  evravda  Xeyofievoi^  dvrikeyetv 
€iri')(ttpe7.  Old  M-OKpwv  ^vpXttnv  eXiri^ttiv  ov  fiovov  t^  irXijOai 
TOW  avataBtiTovs  eKirX^^etv,  dXX'  wy  olfiai  wXelaTovs  diro~ 
tXTpe<pwv  Kal  fAaXtCTa  Tovt  ireTratSevftevov^  d-iro  t^v  dvayvwrews 


Simpliciuii  dc  Casio. 


601 


Cojj.  C.  C.  C. 
nXciTAii'  TO  avtij  Kat  kotw  nrj  Kvpm^  eiri  tow  iravro^  XeyeoBat 
vofxiCotv.  oia  tovto  Kat  to  Kov<bov  ex  aoTov  xat  to  papVf 
vapyi-nj<TaTOy  koi  o  BeMitmoy  Ka'tTotye  ev  toiv  irXfitTTon  tov 
UepitraTov  trpouT^ofxcvo^^  e¥  TOVTtp  -ro7s  nXuTwvtK  apeaMaOai 
itmc'i  MoXXov'  ^X/*^"  "^  otMUt  Kni  irpv^-  toh  (rKoirov  xat  irpon 
Ta  p^fiara  aVoj^XeVoi'Ta  ei/ifociv  <uv  ou  irfpl  trpaytUiTwv 
oXXd  Trept  ovofxarwv  effTtv  ev  tov  toi?  tj  twv  (l>t\o(To<puiy 
via<bopa- 

Fol.  31 .  r.  Ti  ovv  TouTo  awereXetje  frpoi  tov  oixeiov 
CKOTTOv  ij  otm\vyt(K  TOV  k)€/xtaTtov  Trapadefftf  avopoi  trv/A- 
<Puiv6K  Tip  ApuTTOTe\€t  Tou  oupavow  Kat  KQU  o\ov  Kat  Ta 
fieptj  iracr^  poicrj^  c^rjpijii&ai  ro/ui^oyToy. 

Fol.  37  r.  'O  5e  ye  IWutwv  Travra  /uev  to*'  Koatiov 
€K  Twv  Tea(Tapt0v  rrofxeuov  avvearavai  <l>rt<rL     to  fiiv  oparov 

€K    TOV    TTVpOi    e^OVTa    TO    OS    UITTO*'   €K    T^lf    yTft'    TaJv    dt    fie(Ttinf 

ffToi'^fttiiv  eiv  evaptxonov  (XvudetTiv^  twm  axptitv  •yfyei'i/juewi/. 

Fol.  4<>  r.  KoAwv  yap  Kat  o  McXiucoy  oti  to  Tpuxfiv- 
p'lOi?  eTfcir  €Tepotov  yivofxerov^  koto  t^v  outriav  or]\ot'oTi 
^iXotTo'"  a**  €1/  Tip  TTfApovTt  ^(povtp'  WTTc  f(  Kot  tiWoiovaOot 
Xeyei  t*9  to  ovpdvta  vtr  aWtjKa  fir}  votci  iraflos  yitva^tu 
XfyeTw  Ttiv  uWoiaxTiv  -rattTriv'  riWa  TtXeatouprfov  ut  mu 
^o\^   oXAoiovaf^i   XryotTo  evOeaXpwra, 

Fol.  50  s.  Mi/TTore  ^  vvv  vept  t<w  ttvat  Oeov^  vvtt' 
Xr/yl/ty  fiaprvpcTut  vayrtvv  tivOputirtov'  oTt  -tturTev  ai-Opwwot 
oiTOt  vofii^ovatv  eivat  deovi-,  out  T€  tov^  " l-TTTrtuva^,  t^iayopas 
ital     etwov     TIW5     av     ayvwtrroiv     if^lv    tottoiv     eitri     TOtfTa 

OVVTV)(OVVTm. 

Fol,  51  s.  Kat  yap  TlapitevioTj^  o  t^mtov  t^v  UKoij  'laiu¥ 
TovTov  TO**  X0701*  ipwrwv  ev  toU  «7r«(rt  wtpi  tov  ayivrirov 
CiMii  TiJ  ov  Tooe  yeyparhe 

■  ■■  -  TiKO  'yap  ytvvav  w^ijircai  ctuTov 

n»i   iro0w  uv^ti^ev'    owt«   eic  /ti)   oi^o*  etxattt'* 
i'paffQai  a  code   voetv'  ovc4  y^p  <paTov  oude  ¥otjTov 
Ha-Tiv  OTip   ovu   ecTTtv. 

Fol.  60  8.  'AXXii  Kat  6  Tcapa  'lov^aiot^  irpoKfi^Trt^  AaiO 
wtpi   TOU    S«tu   Xeytov'    **  «v    Ttp   rjXiip'"    <^ii9tv    '^  e9eTo  to 


•  MS.  eAvOf . 

*•  US.  ak§ini  et  oX«7rt. 


*  MS.  i-npolo  yitrifiwvov. 


602 


Simplieiu4  de  Caeh. 
Ed.  Venkt. 


Fol.  32  b,  TavTa  hrj  fxaKpoTepa  e^iOrfKa  ev  €atrr6tf 
e^ovra  top  eXey^ov'  wawep  oi  rov  avapfiotrTov  KaTa  t^v 
trapotfiiav  7repi<Pfpov<Tiv    \\p€u(\fj. 

FoL  3.1  h.  Kaj  yap  o\  ovoi  <prj(rt  Atoyevff^  kot  ct^eccur 
afia  Tpoip^v  XoM^vovot  xai  ttotoi*. 

Fol.  35  b.     'ETree  3«  iraXtv  w  eypv^e  ncara  tov  fteX 
'AXkoiov. 

Fol.  38  b.  'AWa  Kttl  o  Ostos  Ia/ipX*X*'*  ^^  "^^  fivrat 
Knrtjyopia^  vTOfivrfnaTt  eypad>€  Tavra.  Xirap^et  fxev  ovu 
Tois-  ova'tcu^  TO  fifjcGv  avrmi  elvat  evavr'tov.  rd  fktv  "yap 
iravria  vt^  cv  att  yevw  TCTafrrac.  ?;  oe  ovtria  ouoev  ^^(a 
eiraitafie^tjKO^  yevov  v<p  o  TcTacrai.  Kal  rd  fiiv  evavTta 
a^effiF  ex*''  ""^P**^  oXXi/Xa.  tj  de  ovata  avev  tr^eaewi  eTTtft 
Kai  ou  \p^i^ei  Trj^  kot  efavT'taxriv  <r-)^€<rewi,  en  ra  iieu  evayria 
air  dXXijXaiv  arrovevei'  tj  o  ovaia  Kad  avTtjv  t^pttTTat'  en 
d  ayroy  xai  e/c  Ttjt  eirayoryrfi  twv  irpurrwv  Kol  cevreptap 
owTtwv  oeiKn/oi  fiijcer  elvat  avrtj  evav-riww.  Kat  fxer  oKiyn 
typatpe  Tav-ra.  rjiroptjaay  ce  Ttves  Trwy  to  XoyiKOU  t^wof  7*<p 
dXo'yf^  OVK  €<TTtf  evavTiov.  rifiei^  o  epovfxev.  a>t  fU»  oXXwp 
cta<popai  Ti)r  ewirap-j^otfaav  ciaibopay  Ttur  ^fovriuir  e^ovo'iw' 
oXov  Ce  oXw  OVK  €<TTat  epavTiov.  Xoyos  oe  Kat  Touoe  Toiovrot' 
TO  C€KTiKov  TWV  evayTitov  auTO  OVK  €a-Txv  evavTtov'  ei  yap 
nwiKpaTt^eirj  vtp  evos  t«ov  evavTtwv,  ovk  av  cvttj0eitj  CTriTrjeeieat 
frpoi  VTToooyriv  OaTepov  "KapacfKevcurO^voi'  w^nrep  tj  yl/trym 
Kat  TO  aw/ia  Kal  a'l  arofiot  ovaiai  Kat  at  devrepat  owritu' 
eiTreo  eirt^e')(ovTai  rd  evavr'ta'  ovk  irrm  avrd  evavrui. 
aXX  ou6  e't  OiaipeOeit}  rt  eis  Ta  evavTta^  wtxirep  to  ^wof 
OVK  ecrrat  Tt  evavriov  <i  ceoyxcos  ircpiey^^t  Trjv  twv  evarTiooif 
tiaip^ctv*  ov  5e  Tovrtav  ovlkv  toTfU  ivavriov.  yvoirj  0  av  Ttt 
auTo  Kat  eiri  tou  opttTfiov  twv  evavTiwv.  TrAetcrrov  yap  otfrot/ 
KeywpnTfx^va  elvat  TauTa  aWt^Xwv  diopiiCfTat-  ai$  oe  vui/ 
XeycTat  wept  Ttfv  avTtjv  ovaiav  Tot/  ^woif  trvvwdp^et^  aXXd 
TTtD?  TO  wvp  Tfp  vcoTt'  xij  oc  ytj  Tov  dcpa  evavTla  <prf<TtP 
ApKTTOTeXtj^  KUTa.  Tttj  eiooTTOiot/v  dm^o^v-  epovfiev  oti  i| 
ovffUu  OVK  cidi.  TO  fiGv  ovy  yj/v^^ov  Kcu  TO  Qep/xov  Kat  TO 
^*fpov  KOi    TO   uypov  dXX^Xoti  evavTta  utrdp'^et.   a\  ce  ovaitu 


Simpiunmi  de  Ctelo. 


603 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

(TKtjutofia  avTot'**  xal  trt  oir^  uk  wpo?'"  ypovov  Ttva  airrov 
€t<rotKicr0^vai  vo/x't^Pt  ^riXoi  Xeymv'  **©  BeM^Xmam  r^v  yi^ 
XOD9  TO   fiti  KXttrvtjvai  ei$  tov  atwi^a  Ttov  aitovwv. 

Fol.  6 1  r,  TaSra  ftaKporepa  TrapeOe/jtrjv  €v  cqi/tok 
evoirra  tov  eXcyvoi'  o>?  ui  tom  qtoxoi/  CfiJuicXea  ircpifpe- 
poirres  KUTa  ttjv  irupotfitau,^^ 

Fol.  6.3  8.  Kai  7a/j  o'l  oj'ot*'  ^;;(T*  Ato7ei'i;v  AOTa  rdi 
(V$€ia^  Ctrl  Ttjv  Tpo<priv  air'iaai   Koi  rijv  Trocriv. 

Fol.  67  r.  'Eiret^  ^  ttoXii'  ot'^  wapopivfi  Kara  -rot 
fieXorrotov    AXKOtov* 

Fol.  72  8.  'AXXa  tea*  o  Bctoi  'loM^Xtxoi  ck  riji  f«  raf 
KaTtjyopiaii  virouinj/iart  Ta^e  'y€ypa<ptv'  "'Yira'^p^c*  fiev  ov¥ 
Tax's  o(/<rmi9  to  (iri^ev  evaVTwv  elvat'  ra  fxev  yap  evavTia 
v<p  ev  yevo^  a'«(  vtroTctTTeTat  t]  ^e  ovtria  ovi^ev  e-)(€i  dvtarcpor 
ytvo^  €i/,  v<p>'  o  TayBt](T€Tai'  Koi  tcl  fiev  cvavTiav  tryeiTiy  «x« 
TTjEw?  aXX>;Xa"  >j  o€  ovata  atr^eTos-"*  eaTi*  xai  ov  wpoeroelTat 
T^s  KOTa  Trjv  cpacTitiwi*'  (r^etrcoj?*  ert  xa  ^ei/  evavria  TrpiK 
aXXi;Xri  dwovevet.  ^  oe  wcia  Ka$'  eauTi^v  wpttTTat'  avrot 
ye  fit}v  eir\  Tjjs  ettayotyt}^  twi'  ^pwrwv  Kai  oevTeptov  ovtfttov, 
TO  fiijcev  eltvit  evavTtov  avTtj  xaTatrftcwi^cf."  Kal  fivr  oX'iya 
Ttioe  yeypatbev'  "  Avopoviri  o4  Ttvev  ttwv  to  Xoyi^foy  lww 
Ttf)  oAoytft  ovK  eiTTiv  evavTiov  tjfiets  oe  epovfxev  ttK  f*€v  Ttvi 
otatpopff  Tt/v  evvirapyowrav  otn<popav,  cvatTiov  to  oe  oKov 
T^  oXy  OVK  toTtu  evavTtov'  Xo-yoy  Ze  toutou  tou  oirot"  to 
eviSe^o/ievov  to,  evavrlaj  ovk  cixtii/  avrtp  evavTiov'  <t  'yap 
icoT«^oiTO  i»^  evo%  Tcuv  ci/aMTiuii'  oyic  a**  bvvaiTO  koi  irpov 
TTji"  TOV  CTVpov  jcaTtt^o^iJi'  €WtTtj^ti(xn  KOTacTKevdaOai'  olo¥ 
^*9C''>  <r^f*a,  a\  oto^oi"  ovtriaf,  Kot  SevTcpai  ov<Tiait  elirep 
eirtot-\oivTo  Tavatrrlai  ovk  etrTai  avrd  evavrta  aXX  ovoe  e'l 
otaipotTO  Ti  «iff  Tel  ivauTta  wairep  to  Xf^Vj  ovoe  ovtok  eoTat 
crai'TfOi'  €1  KoivfOi  ye  7rc/>te^ci  7t;k  TWf  evavTitov  ciaipecrtVf 
w<TTe  ov  ce  tovtiuv  co'Tcu  evavTtov.  i  vat)  oe  av  Tt$  xai  otto 
TOW  opot/  TWIT  cifcua-iofi/  TouTo'  irXfitfrroM  'ya/>  fcej^oi^iadai 
avTa  OTT   aXXijXtuv  u<J>opi^ofteBa'  w^  oe  viiv  Xe^erai  irtpt  tiji' 

'•  MS.  ir„6. 

"  PUl  Soph.  p.  3112.  (»mp  -nl*  vrwor  Rm/iwa.Xm  vr^ifr^^rrit  Wet  vo^iiorrui. 
Cf.  W»U  Arwii.  Vlolei.  p.  a<4— fi. 

'•  MS.  oT*><)..  •>  MS.  It. 

'•  MS,  iaxt^^*-  "  *^**^  ^rofiat. 

Vol.  II.  No.  6.  4H 


604  Simplidti*  de  Cceta- 

Ed.  Vknbt. 


Fol.  46  a.  Aia  y(^>  TavTtjv  oi  iiev  ewa  xat  wempav^emaf 
iXeyof  TQv  KocfAof  offoi  ovK  eofivoKTo  TO  airetpov  «»  t^  ^PXV 
ta^  ' AptaToreXri^  Kal  XWartw  o\  oe  iva  aireipov,  tik  'Ara^i/tmyc 
aepa  avetpov  t^v  apx^^  etvcu  \eymv'  oi  ^e  Kctl  t^  rXijOet 
aweipovs  KWXfiov^'  o  fxev  yap  ' Ava^ituivSpo^  mrnpoy  t^  fivyeO^ 
Tiji'  ap^^^v  Ti$«*v,  aretpov  owtw  icai  tov  Koa-ftov  eXey^v*  m 
oe  vepl  ^tifjLOKpiTOv  airelpow  t^  ir\^0ei  rt^erres  tov  apj^at, 
aireipow  ry  irXf^d€<  /tot  ToiJff  Koa-fiov^  ev  ry  aveipia  fav^^  «f 
air«</Mt>v  r^  ttXij^ci  arojuwi'  a-uvurTotrdaf  <pa(ri,  xal  ettj  air 
Xc'/wv  a/>^iii'  iratrmf  rwv  cMayruMrewv  vrodetrda*  n  awetpoo 
i  ^ij  uirodecr^i,  ot»  toC  koVjuou  icai  tos  oXXo?  evaiTUMrcit 
iroo^as  (Tui^^et*  koi  €T»  ota  ravrifv  r^i/  ouupmfituf,  ot 
/jL9f  dvmpowTt  yevfivtVf  ^laKpitrci  vipetrraiKu  Keyomre^  ttovto, 
tos  '  AiKi^ayopai'  <m  oe  e^  evos  to  travra  ifituri  yiveirBatf 
jcara  eKKpiffiv,  tn  ' Ava^iiuu^po9  xal  'Atfa^ifiienjf*  o'l  oe  •yaveoxv 
elvai  ipaat,  xal  e^  dXK^ktov  yeveatv  voioSatv,  t^p  BaTwpoit 
y€veffiv  $aT€pov  <p$opdi/  6p£vT€^.  w$  o'l  trewepairfiefag  toc 
upjfOi  Xe*yorF69*  to  oe  ookovv  ck  Ta79  dp^tus  fuxpov  vapopafga, 
trpotowTi  ^iXiovXao'ioi'  ^cwei,  jcoJ  c^  t/Tra'yaf^ivr  fiosi^e  kbu 
9K  \wywt.  e^  uvaywy^i  /i€»  ori  ^tffiOKMTOs  tj  ovrttovw 
o^av  vweOtiKe  fiucpd  Ttva  v-KOTSivre^  dpyaiy  xai  eXa;^MrTa 
fieyiStit  oia  tS  fiey'urrtiy  oviv^uv  e\etv  wf  dpyatj  TXiKU^e* 
XovKTCf  irept  ravVas,  ra  iieyuTra  rwv  ev  ytntfAerfH^  tiunpffoir* 
OifXovoTf  TO  T<i  neyiQfi  ZtMfitra  eir  avetpov  elvou.  ou  cai 
Tqv  oodelo'fli'  ei/deiav  fii(  ovo  ovvaToif  Te/nvtw'  kclI  yapuwrmt 
fikdyyiTov  ire^popa^a  cv  Ttj  KaTct  to  €\d)(taTov  fuyeOmt 
wirpdcureiy  oia  to  ex*'**  '^  ^PX^^  ixeyurTrjv  ^vvofuv,  m  tmt 
Me^ifTTwir  a/uuipTi7/iiaTiui/  yevoficvov  euTiov  oeixvwrt. 

Fol.  56  b.  Aei^af  oti  ovoei/  traofia  ^fyutrtKov  airXovw  kuI 
tTwe^eif  OTTold  earn  to  (TToi^elat  amreipov-  otov  t€  etvai,  Sei- 
Kwatv  etrofxeifoi^  oti  ovo  ws  to.  ouopurfieva  awetpa  t^  ir\ij0et 
e^ov  Te  flvat  rd  KuxXip  fftinarOf  tis  oi  irepl  A^jucM^roir  xal 


Simpiiciu«  de  Cah. 


605 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

avT^v  ovffiav  tow  ^tocv  <r\fvvrapy€t'  uXXa  ?r««  to  vup  t^ 
iioaTt  KOt  TQV  aepa  ttj  yrj  evnvria  \tyet  6  AptCToreXiK 
Kara  -rdv  et^oiroiovs  ^tfKovori  ^m^/M9  <f>ij(rofAev  at  rtt/es  ovk 
e'talv  ovfficu'  to  fiiv  ovv  ^vj(^p6v  (cai  dtpiiov  Kcd  ^tjpov  koi 
vypov  ciAAffXoiv  epavria  virapyei  m  ct  oXat  ovaim  trpo^  xa^ 
oX.a9  overias  ovk  ej^outrtv  evattr'ttiKTeii  cxt  t^  avTtj^  avve<p€' 
(TTfjKatnv. 

Vo\.  89  r.  O'l  fktv  €va  Koa/iov  ■trewepao'/ievoy  eXeyov 
OCTOi  fiff  eotvorro  to  awftftov  ev  ap^ti  mJp  ApuxToriXif^  xai 
iiAuTwi>  oi  ce  ev  uirtipov  wv  txvuc^umvi}^  tiefHi  airetpov  ttjv 
ap'X^I*'  elvat  Xe^/ei'  Oi  Oe  Ty  TrXij^tc  airftpouv  xoafiotn  tti\ 
Avu^ffAaycptK  latev  aneipov  xy  we^fl'(^ei  Ttfv  apxtfy  0efi€vov 
airelpovi  e^ auTov  Ttji  wXtl&et  Koaf^ovs  Troic?**"'  ook€i.  AevKiTrwov 
ce  KQi  ^tjMOKptroK-  direipovs  no  TrXrt0€i  ruuv  Koaiiov-i  €v  direiptf} 
T^J  Kcw^  KOt  s^  dfTfipwv  Tip  ttXijOci  twv  ot^wv  avv'nTTOtjBat 
<Prt<Ti,  Kai  *T*;  «!'  Xe-yecK  dp\tfv  vaawv  twv  evayrtaxTtwy  to 
uvoOetrGai  to  airtipov  ij  /ntj  v'frode<T$(it'  uti  ot  KOfffJun  Kat 
Tas  aXXa¥  CfavTiwreiv  iraaa^  irepiiyovai'  Kat  fievrot  dta 
TavTijv  T^v  Qia<pti}viav  ot  fiev  avaipovct  Trjv  'ycreo'ti'  iv  Kpicrei 
irain-a  \><pi<rTaad(u  Xeyovre^'  axrirep  AvaJ^ayopm'  o\  te  ef 
^'vos  iravra  yit'serBat  Xtyovctv^^  naS'  ev0eiav  wy  'Aval^ifiavdpot 
Kai  Ava^ifi^vtjK'  oi  oe  xai  y€v$<Tty  elvai  Xeyova  Kal  ef 
aXA^Xoii'  T9}v  yev&Ttv  irotovai  Ttjv  aXXov  <p0opav,  aXXov 
yivetrttf  opMvrt^  «d?  ot  treirtpafTfxevoi  to?  dpyai  Xdyovre^' 
oTi  ce  -rciXii;  iv  xjj  ^p\V  iXdytc^Tov  toKovo  irapopafia  wpo' 
lovai  ftvpioirXaatoy'^'^  (pu'ivtTat'  Knt  ex  tiJs  eTraytDyiji 
etricTTtoaaTo  itai  ex  tov  Xoyov.  ex  fiev  Ttji  etraywyrjif  ori 
ArtfiOxpiTOv  IJ  otTTit  av  owTwy  u-iro^oiTo  fUKpa  Ttva  vir<Se fievo% 
TCts  apyav  KOI  eXaynrra  fieyeBff  ctd  to  fieyumjy  ovvofiiv  W9 
ap^ai  €)(et¥,  ufiapTovrcv  wepl  avra  tu  fteytaTa  toJk  ev  'ycftiMe* 
Tpiyi  inivTtaav'  totc  itr  uiretpov  elvat  tu  neytOri  CiatpeTa'  oto 
xal  Ttjf  dodrtaav  ev^rioM  ^ix''^  TefMVttv  ^vvutov'  koI  ^apievTttV 
TO  eXu^^io-Tof  TTupopafia  eiri  ttjv  koto  to  €Xd)(^i(TTov  fiiytOoi 
VTTodeffewi  iia  to  myltrrriv  ^vfufitv  w?  a/>X*'*'  ^xei*".  m 
HtyitTTwv    aiTiOf   dftapTtjfxaTmv    yivofitvov  eorifay. 

Fol.  106  r.     Aei^at    ovv  oti  oxttcv  awfia   <pvenKov  aTrXoiv 
a-vv€-)^ev  otawep  rd  (TTOi^ela  cffTtv  dircipov  elvcu  ivvaTov^  ^€iV- 


"  MM.irMtT. 


'•  M8.X^<i. 


'  M&  /tw^in'XtlffiAi-t 


G02 


Simpliciu9  de  Casio. 

Ed.  Venkt. 


cat 


Fol.  32  b.      'VaZra    ^»;    ficucporcpa     e^cOrfKa 
ej(Oinra    tow   tXey^ov'    aiaTrep    o'l    tov  at/apfioaTov   KaTa    Tif 
Trapoin'tav  Trepi<f>€pov<riv    HpcwrX^. 

FoL  3:i  b.      Kai  yap  o't  ovoi  <prt<^t  ^toyeviji   Kar-'  evOe 
afia  TpofpJ^v  Xayupa I'd/ere  kui  -jroTof^ 

Fol.  35  b.     'Eirci  Be  TraXtv  V9  eypv^e  Kara  tov  m^Xq 
'AXxatov. 

Fol.  S8  b.  'AXXa  Kat  o  Beioi  lafijiXt^'K  ev  t^  et^Tcu 
KaTijyopia^  vtrofiyti/iiaTt  eypadte  Tavra.  Yirap-j^ei  /xcv  otn 
Tai(  ovtriat^  to  jutjcev  avTaiv  etvai  evavTtov.  ra  /lap  va/ 
fifain-i'a  v<p'  ev  aei  yivov  TerajcTai.  rj  oc  oy<T*a  owei*  e^c 
en-ai^n/Sr/BfjKOf  'y^^'w  v*^'  o  Tcraicrat.  xat  xa  ^ev  evairrM 
(Tp^cCTti;  €^ei'  wpo^  oXXijXa.  ij  oe  ovaia  av€V  cr^cffews  c<mr 
Kai  ov  x/"'s*"'  ^^^  '^*'''"  e^'aiTiwo'tF  o^eaecoi-.  en  xa  /nci'  c»^Kr«ci 
ax  aXXj/Xajf  oTroi/euei*  ij  o  ovata  KnO  avTtjv  wpta~rat'  rn 
o  at/Tos-  Kul  c«  T^t  eTrayotytfi  twu  Trpurrtav  Kal  vevTeptaa 
ovaiwv  ceiKi'voi  fxrjdev  flvat  avTtj  evam-itof.  Kat  h€T  oXiya 
eypatpe  TavTa.  tj-rroptja-av  ^e  rtves  ttw  to  XoyiKOV  ^'WM'  Tif 
aXoytp  ovK  eoTtv  epovrJoi/.  ti/Aeis  d  €povfx€v.  cus-  fiev  oXAcc^t 
cta(f>opat  Ttjv  ewTrapyotMTav  oiad>opav  Tav  ^vavrttuv  e^ovcriy 
oXov  c€  oXw  OVK  cffToi  €faiTto»'.  Xoyot  ce  xat  Tovoe  toiovto9* 
TO  ocKTtKov  Twv  evavTtwv  aiiTo  OVK  e<mv  EyaifTtou'  ct  y^fi 
ewiKpaTt/Oeitj  i/^'  evo^  tS>v  evuvTitav,  ovk  av  omrf$€iij  ewiTfjoeius 
TTpo^  vwooo^ijv  OaTcpov  trapatTKiVfUT^rivtu'  totnrep  ^  ^^^ 
KOt  TO  (Twfxa  Kal  at  aTO/iot  ovuiat  Kat  at  bevrepai  ot^iai' 
t'iirep  iirtoexovrai  xa  evairria'  ovk  evTat  avra  evawTia, 
aW  ovo  €t  Ctaipeueirj  Tt  «tc  xa  evavTta,  tetrtrep  to  ^mov 
OVK  earat  Tt  evavriov'  ei  (Jeouxws  Trepte^ct  TTjif  xwy  ftfafTtwif 
ctaiptaiv.  ov  o€  tovtwv  ovdeu  eoTai  evavTtov.  yvotfj  o  av  ifl 
avro  Kat  ewt  xou  opirrpav  twv  evavTtwv.  trXeitTTov  yap  orjwou 
KfYwptar^et'a  elvat  TavTa  aXX>/Xa;i'  Ciopi^eTat-  w%  ce  vuv 
XeycTot  Trepi  x»J»'  auTijf  ovdiav  tov  l^wov  <Tvvvirap^«t.  aXXa 
iri«9  TO  TTVp  Tip  iJoari*  t^  oe  yt}  tov  aipa  evavTta  ^jj<rjp 
AptaToriXrji  KaTa  xay  e'too-KOiovs  oui^opat.  tpovfieti  ox*  " 
ovtrUu  OVK  e'ttrL  to  fxtv  ovv  yf/u^^v  KOt  to  BepM-ov  koi 
^*lpov  KQt    TO  vypov  oAX^Xoif  evavTta  uvapxei.   a'l   oe  owffi 


Simplirius  de  Ca 


608 


I 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

tncrivoifia  avrou'**  xal  on  owv  coy  xoos-"  -^^povov  Ttva  avTOv 
e'laoncurB^vtu  vojuil^et  ^tjXoi  Xeyiav'  "  o  BeM^Xiwaav  t^v  yrpf 
TTpDC  TO   fit]  K\t(rOrivat  eiV  tov  aimva  Ttav  a'twvwv. 

Fol.  6l  r.  Tai/Ta  fuxxportpa  TrapeOffxrjv  €V  cavroii 
e^ovra  tov  eXey^ov  019  o't  tov  utokov  EvpvKXea  trcpif^' 
povTes  KOTO  Tritf  irupoifi.tav,y* 

Fol.  63  8,  Kat  yap  0*1  o»^t"  <prj<Ti  ^loyevtjs  Kara  xdt 
fvOfia^  eiri  Ttjv  rpo^iji'  amaa-i  Kai  tijv  iroa-w. 

Fol.  67  r,  'ETTCi^;)  ^e  iraXtv  wy'*  Trapopivti  kotu  tov 
fieXoTTwov    AXkoiov* 

Fol.  72  s.      'AXXa  Kat  6  $c7oi  'IaV/3XiX<^*   «"   i^'i'  *'*    "^"^ 

KOTffyofnat  VTroMvifiOTt  Tace  yeypafpcv'  ''"YirajOj^ft  /ieu  ovp 

Toi?  ut^crioK   TO    fitioey   evavriuv   clvat'   to    yufi/   "/a/J    evavTta 

v<p   €v  yevo^  aet  viroTaTTerai  7  5t'  oi^i'u  ovcei*  fX^t  avwrepav 

■yeyo?  ev,   y^'  o  Ta^0?ja"€Tai'  xai  xa  /ue**  evavTiav  ayeatv  ej^ci 

wpoy  aXAi^Xa*   tj   b€  ova-ta  oc^^to?"    ecrr*"   icat  ov  vpoaieiTai 

Ti/y  Kara   Ttjv  efavTiayrtf  ffYCffea*?'  cti  to  fieu  evatn'ta  trpov 

aAXi;\a   dwovevet.      tj    de    ovcria    Kaff   eavTriv   mpioTat'    avrot 

y€  fi7}v  eiri  t>;c  c^aymyt}ii  runv  "rrnuiTttw  xat  6€vT6pu>¥  ovaitiav, 

TO  fiticev  eivat  eyavTiov  auT*j  KmafTKevaifi.        koi  fi€T  oKiya 

Ttioe   yeypafJHv'   ** ' Atropoutn  oi  Ttw?   ttm^  to  Xoyixav  ^wo¥ 

T<p  aXoy(fi  ovK  etTTiv  evatrriov'  t)tut^  Cf  epovfiev*  iw  wew  tii»i 

^aipop^    Ti;i/    efuiraovot/traf    ctad>opaVt   rvavriov'    to  oe   oXoy 

T^  o\tfi  OVK  €(TTat  evavTtov  \oyos  oe  tovtou  tov  ovroi  to 
•     ?.  *•  f  trf  ...  »•■* 

orioe^o/tecoi/   Ta    evavTta,    ovk    e<TTiv    avrtp    evayTiov     et    yop 

KOTey^oiTo    v<p    cfoi    Ttuv  evavTtuiv    ovk   uv  ouvaiTo   kui   tt^ov 

Ttjv    TOO    erepov    KaTado-^rfy    iiriTijctltof    KaTa<TKeuaar0ai'   olo¥ 

^*^'A    (Tw^ta,    ai   UTOfioi "    oi^o-fac,    irai    deuTepat   ovcriatf    ttirep 

cirict^oii'TO   TavaVTia,    ovk    eCTai   avra  evavTta  oAA    oi/oc   ci 

otaipoiTO  Ti  «ip  TO  e'vokTfa  wcnep  to  twof,  ovoc  ovtoi?  CffTOi 

ei-avTioy   et    Koiv^   ye   irepu-^a   t^v  twv    evayr'nav   otaipetftVt 

wtrre  ov  ce  rwroiv  ttrrai  kvavTtov.      Yvo'o)  d«  av  Tts  Koi  aieo 

TOV    opov    tAv    evayrlwv    tooto*     -TrXetaTov  yap    Ke^aip'ttrSai 

avTa  ott'  dXXiJXtov  dtpopt^o^fBa'  wv  ^e   vvv  Xiyerai  trrpi  tpJk 

' '  PUt.  Ho|ih.  p.  SJKI.  ivmp  -ni*  i'rgiraf  Ri/HinKiii  wtfii^p^nrrtt  ti»l  n^vMrroi. 
ce.  Whin  Anea.  VitOet.  |i.  !MA.-& 

<•  MS.  olfSi.  '»  Ma  ic. 

••  MS.  rf<rx>rr««.  "   Cod.  a-n/iai. 

Vol.  II.  No.  6.  4H 


604  Simpliciut  <U  Ca^- 

Ed.  Venkt. 
wpos  o}<MS  ras  ovtriai  wk  eyovatv  eww^iwrets.  «'  av  Tif  ovrif 


Fol.  46  a.  Aio  'ya/>  rai/xf/i'  o<  fiev  ewx  koI  wewepoartaMvev 
i'Keyo¥  TQv  Kwrfioc  ocw  ouic  eoe-vovro  to  airetpow  ev  t^  ^ffiXP 
wff  'A/jio-totcXjjs  Km  nXarwi/  o\  de  eva  avetpovn  <W  'Avc^tftw^ 
itepa  airetpov  t^v  a^X^"  etfot  XcywF*  oi  oe  jcai  t^  irXijBei 
aweipow  KOfffioui'  o  nev  yap  ' Ava^ituivSp<K  arretpoy  t^  /leyi^^g 
T^v  ap-)(^v  tiki's,  aretpov  ovTot  xai  tov  koo'/ioc  eXeyev.  m 
«e  ire/>i  ^tj/AOKpiTov  aweipow  ry  vXifdet  Ti^errcy  ra?  a^x^M* 
tnnipmK  T^  irXf;de<  xai  tov;  Koa-fiov^  iv  t^  aireipw  mvy,  e{ 
air«(/Ottiv  T^  irXi^^€i  arojuwi'  trvvurratTOed  <p<uri,  xal  st^  or 
Xc^ywF  apj0v  vatrwv  twv  evavruaaewv  vxodeoOai  re  amtpom 
If  fti}  t/iFod*?^!^  OT<  TOV  KocTMOv  fat  Tas  oXXof  ei>avrcftKr«<t 
Too'as  (Tvi^x^**  '^*''  ^''''  ^"^  Tovrifv  n^if  OHX^Awfov*  oi 
MC**  apoijoowri  yeviKiriv,  otaic/vurci  v^eerroMu  XevoiTe?  irayro, 
w(  'Avet^a'yopas*  oi  ^  e^  ei^os  ra  iravra  <f>€uri  yivetrBatf 
Kara  eKxpurtv,  m  * Ava^ifuxvoptK  xat  'Ava^tfUv^,  ot  09  yivetnm 
sJiKtl  ^XuTt,  Kal  G^  oXXijXciii'  yev&yuf  irocovcrii',  t^¥  Oafipov 
y^vetrw  Barepov  diQop^v  6p£vT€f.  tei  oi  •reirepafffi.evQS  nir 
<ip')((K  AeyoiT€9  TO  oe  ookovv  ev  Tats  ap^ats  /uKpov  irapopofutf 
wpotouai  -xjiXiovXaaiov  BoKety  Kal  e^  vwaytoy^i  eott^t  Koi 
ex  \oyov.  e^  vvaywyiji  /Aev  oTi  ^ttfiOKpiTos  n  osrcfowr 
ap^as  vweOijKe  fiucpa  Ttva  viroTt&€VT^  ap^as,  xai  eXa^tirra 
M€y4$ih  oia  TO  /leyitTTijv  ovim/uv  €-)(etv  m  apj^aty  rK^Mf^" 
Xovpres  irepl  ravVas,  Ta  n-iyurra  twv  iv  yct^/A^rpi^  iidv^aav' 
jifXo#OTf  TO  TO  /leyvBti  ^ip^Ta  iw  air€tpov  etiwu*  wi  ical 
Tiyv  ao$€i<r9v  eu0eiaf  eU  dvo  ovwaTw  TCfiv^iv'  Kai  yapavrmg 
0>kilj(uxTov  vapopa/Aa  iv  rij  Kara  to  iXdxurrov  ftaye&or 
vw^Beafif  oid  to  €j(9iv  ws  ap^x^tf  fieyiVTrjy  SvvofUiff  m  rw 
fieyuTTtvv  dfLapTijftaTwv  yevofievov  a'lTiov  oeUvvat. 

Fol.  56  b.  Aec^as  ort  ovSev  awfia  Kpvo'tKov  airXovr  xai 
irwe)(iB9,  ovoid  itm  Ta  cTotj^eia,  airetpov.  otov  Te  eTifOi,  oei- 
KvwTiv  eiro/!t€vaK  oTt  ouo  tos  Ta  oimpiiTfjteva  airetpa  Tip  irXtjdei 
e^v  Te  flvai  rd  kvkX^  {rwfutTa>  tis  ol  Tepl  ^^fMKptTO¥  icai 


Simplicius  de  CaUt, 


60fi 


Cod.  C.  C*  C 

avTtiv  ovaiav  tov  ^wov  tn/vVTrapj^ft'  aXXa  vwi  to  wvp  ry 
t/6aTt  Kat  Toi*  at  pa  Trj  yrj  evavria  Xeyct  o  ApuTToreXrK 
Kara  Ta9  ei^OTroiovi  itjXovon  ^lai^^f  ^qaofiev  ai  Tive^  ovk 
CKTiM  ot'Oiat'  TO  fi€v  ovv  "^vypov  Kat  Otpfioy  K(tl  ^tfpov  nai 
vypov  oXXjjXoiv  tvavTM  uirap-^ft  at  ^*  o\at  owriat  irpov  toj 
6Xai  ovirias  ouk  e^ot/o'ti'  €V€urriuKjetS  airl  T^  avriji  avve^^ 
tTTtiKatriv. 

Fol.  89  T.  Oi  fiev  eva  KwrtJ^ov  ire-Trt paafievov  cXcyov 
oaoi  fi^  c^evoi^o  to  uietipov  iv  dpxn  ws  'ApiaToriXti^  Kal 
nXttToii'*  OI  ce  €V  awtipov  toK  Ava^ifieuyj^  uepa  atr^tfjov  t^v 
^PX'i"  c<t^<  \iyci'  O'l  o6  Ttfi  TrXiidei  dirtipovK  Koa/iom  wr 
Ava^inavdpos  fiev  aneipov  Tiji  iLivye0€t  Ttji'  ap^^v  Qefievov 
atreipav^  i^avrov  rtp  wXriBct  KuiTfiov^  ■jroutv"'  CoKCt.  AeVKiinro^ 
ct  Kat  ^rjfjtOKptT<K  aTTCtpoi/v  tw  Tr\ri$€i  tuvv  KocputK  €v  UTreipifi 
T^  Ktvtp  Kui  i^  dveiptov  Tqi  ir\tj&€t  twv  aTOfiiav  awifrratrBat 
<PtjfTi,  Ka'i  t'irj  av  Xtyttv  ap^^v  Traabiv  Twy  €$'ayTttit<Ttwv  To 
i/vodeaOai  to  aTretpov  rj  /utj  viroOetrdat'  on  ot  KoofHH  Kat 
Taff  uXXaj-  evavr tweets  irdtja^  Trepte^pvai'  not  fiivToi  «a 
Twrriv  T^»  Stafpwviav  ot  fxiv  dvatpoOiji  tijv  yivsifiv  €v  Kpi^et 
iravTa  v(p'uTTa<Tdat  Xiyovre^'  w(Ttrep  Aya^ayopa^'  a'l  oe  i^ 
ivos  trdvra  yii'ttrOut  Xeyowriv^*  koC'  evSetav  t^s  'Ava^ifuxycpo^ 
Kat  Ava^tfitvrj^'  ot  de  Kat  yeveotv  efiKu  \eyot/<n  koI  «^ 
aXXiiXttJf  Ty}v  yivetriv  irotovtrt  Tiji*  aXXou  <p$opdf,  aXXou 
ysiv<nv  opwvTts  wi  o\  trewepatrfievot  Ta?  apyav  Xtyovrei' 
on  oe  iraXiv  ev  Ttj  dpy^tj  eXaj^KTroi/  doicovi'  vapopapa  irpty- 
lovat  pvptoirXaatov'  ^  ibalvcrat'  Kat  eic  t^s  « wayotytf^ 
etrtartuaaTo  koi  e«  toi*  Xoyov.  sk  fitv  tijs  ewaywyrjif  on 
^rjfiOKpiTOi  tf  otrrtt  av  oVTWf  uiroOoiTO  fUKpa  Ttva  VTro0f fievot 
TOi  €tpyu^  Kat  eAaviffTa  fieyeurj  eta  to  peyta-rtjy  ct/vatuu  (uv 
upxav  e-^eiVf  dfiaprovre^  wept  aura  rd  fieyttrra  raJv  ev  yeiunf 
Tpttf  iiiivitiTav'  Toxe  btt  diretpov  elvai  tu  /xeye$tt  ctatperd'  oto 
nal  Ttjif  coOeiaav  evOttav  ci^a  refivetv  Suvarov'  Kat  ^a^ieVrcvr 
TO  €Xtxxt<rTov  TrapopafAu  t-tri  r^v  Kurd  to  eXajjiaroj'  fxeyfdof 
tnroSecrtoK  5ia  to  ti€yi<TTrjv  Suvafjuv  wv  dpx>)v  e^ety,  tfv 
fAeyitTTtuf    atTtov   u/iapri/^axuM'    ywofxetfov  eott^av, 

Fol.  10()  r.     Aci^of   ovy  oTt   ovi>€y  atatxa   tpuffiKov  airXovw 
trvvtyev  *>iOirep  to  cToi\eia  e<XT'uf  a-wapov  elvat  ovvaTov^  c€iK- 


•■  MB.  iro»r. 


"  M».  \iytt. 


'  MA>  tmpowKttvimv' 


606  Simplit'ius  tie  Ctrfo- 

Eo.  Venet. 

AevKiinrov  vtreTlOevTo  o'l  irpo  avTov  yevonevot^  Kai  /icr 
avToy  ^Tr'tKovpts.  eXeyov  ynp  avrot  Ta?  ap^av  aneipov^  ciku 
Tip  "jrXrjSei,  oTiva  xai  aTOftovs  Koi  aoiaipCTa  wqvto  Kai  n,trm^, 
5ia  TO  crre/jea  koi  afieprf  eiynt  ev  tm  «ei/(fi,  xai  Kara  to  vrror 
eUcvofjtei^f  uirep  ev  toik  (jwfxatjiv  eXe^of  ytvtavai'  tqs  oe 
aTo^xovi  er  tw  aireijorjj  xfpfy  ott  aX\»;\wi'  ice^ct>pi(ructra?  icai  dt- 
a<p€pou(Ttfi  (T)(nmxri  koI  fteyeOtt  icai  Secret  *tat  rafei,  <p€p€tT0cu 
ev  T^)  Kd'M  Kai  cr(/\Xo/iptti'OAic^<'v  aXX>}Aai9  cvfiviXeicrOat  xat 
TO  /uef  Tov  -jrpayfiaTw  avoftotov  owoft  ay  ci/dej^^^rai  yivetrBat* 
avvLtdvftv  ce  Tavrai  aWrjXaK  Kara  Ttjv  rivv  fxtyeQiov  Kat 
fjyrjtiaTwv  Kol  Betrewu  Kat  Ta^ttav  ai//iiM€Tpiai'f  xai,  Toimj 
(TVfi^aifetv  TTji'   Ttav  avySerwv  y€vf(Tiv  rtXetovtrOoi- 


Fol.  6H  a.      Apticl  re    a<pOovtA}?    Kat  o    rj/xcTepov  Tratdcvrtjc 

A/AfiWVttK    eV    oKtp    TtO    (iv^XiW     TOUTtJt     CetKPVVt     OTl    ou     flOfOr 

TeX(Jc»;i/  aXXa  kiu  wottjTiKtjv  airiav  tow  kwt/iou  nyvat  tow  &tov 
o   ApttrroTeXtjs. 

Fol.  (>3  a.  'I'd  Kotvov  Ttjs  ufTtQetxew^  twv  irportptov  \eyt»v^ 
eirtryci  Ttfv  SiQ<popdv'  irepi  tifv  yap  tov  yevijrov  eitfot  top  Koa*- 
fAOV  irapra^  avfxtpatveiv  <pTj<ri  Touffre  OfoXoyov^  /cai  tow  <f>V(Tt^ 
Kovs'  Kat  TaJi^  Xe-yoiTwi'  en  yevrjToif  avTov  o't  uev  ai^tov 
ipofftv  m  Opfbevs  «cai  {]<rio*>uv  Kat  juct*  avrov^  IXXartov'  tu^ 
<^ti(Ttv  'AXe^ai/cno9,  o'l  ce  twv  ytvifTov  Xcyot^mv  koi  ^9apTO¥ 
^a<rt'  biTrXoJj  cc  toDto*  o't  ju«V  yap  oCtw  yBapTov,  ws  oT«Twr 
aXXo  TWF  cvvecTfoTtvv  aTojuwv*  wcnfp  ^jbiKoaTff  (pOaproy 
ctjXotjoTt  Kat  oifKCTt  ewavt'iKovTa'  oio*  afioi^adov  yeve<j9al  tc 
Kai  tp&tipeffSai  top  qiJtom  Kat  avBti  i^e'tpeoQai  Kftatrtv.  Kat 
at  owv  cTfat  Tijir  toiovtiji'  otaony^v'  KaBatrep  iLti^tvoKXij^ 
<f>iXiav  Kai  uetKo^  Xeywf  ek  fxepov^  xpaTOvvTa,  Tfi¥  ^lev  trvy- 
Kpiviiv  TravTO  ck  ev  Kai  tpdeipetv  tov  tov  vetKOvi  KOTfiov, 
Kat  iroietv  e^  avTou  trtpatpov'  to  ce  vtiKO^  otoKpiveiv  €u>0is 
TO  <rToiytiit  Kat  xoieir  toiovtov  Kwrfiov.  TaCra  o  E^ir^r^ 
do/rX^v  oj;Xoi  Xtytov'  aXXoTc  nev  i^iXia  avvep^coBai  ct?  ei» 
arravTa.  aXXoxe  d  avOt^  KaO  avTa  CKatrra  tpipeaOat  t^  tov 
vetK€Oi    €)(Bpa    T^t   fitv  uuOts    eimou(rrjv    evm    irXeiw    aTroTC- 

\"  •/  :*»  I  .••'Tilt/  ._• 

AeiTQi.  ovTu  cti  Toi  yivtTat  koi  ouk  efATroOileTai  avTwr  fj 
oioiori^v-  toiJti/v  o  av  niTaXXayQ^larit:  KVKXift'  ov^eirore  irav- 
ovTai  ovTfti  6   act  y'tvovTai  aKtvijTat  KOTti  kvkXov.  kqI  o    l^pa^ 


SimplicUi8  de  C<bU}. 


607 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

vvffiv  e^eftj?  wT(  w^e   evpurnetfa   airetpa  t^  wX^Bet  SucaToi* 

cTi'ai    Ta   aTotyeiworj  auifxara,    ws  ot  vepi  AeuKnrirov  teat  A17- 

i ftoKpiTov   viror'Sevro   rrfM   avTov  yeyovo-revt    tai   fier    avrw 

EwtKovpoi'    ovTot  yap  eXcyoi*  aircipoyv   eivat  ry  TrXijOet   tov 

ap)^at'    Of  icai  aTOfiov^  icai  avtaip^Tov^  evofxi^ov   koI    a7ra6e7v' 

via  TO  I'affTaV  etvat  Kat  afxo'tpovs  tov  k^vov'  T7/y  ytlp  ctaipetrtv 

rKOTa  TO  KCfoi'    TO  cv   TOt^  (jwfiaoiv  nXeyov  y'tv^aBat  Tavra^ 

ci   raj  uTOfiOVi  ev  uircc^ai   Tip    iceVr^    Kfy^aipttrfiefai   a\Xt'i\wy 

xai  cia<l>€pov<Tai'  a^rj/iaatTc  Kal  neyeOetrt^  Kat  Octret  Kut  xa^ei 

[AepecBai  ev  t^  Kfvtp  Kat  CTriKaToXa/ipayovaa^  aXXtjXa^  airy- 

»jcpov€(TBut J    Kat   Ta9  fiev  aTro-jraXXeaBat  uttol   af  Tvvtvtrti',  tuk 

|e«,  irepiTrXeKeaBat  aXXtjXati  KaTu  t^v  ay^tj/iaraiv  xai  n^ynBtJov 

1  Kat   Beaeoiv  xal   Tu^ewv  avfi/iieTpiav'  avfi^ivetf  Kat  ovTtu  tiJk 

\  Twv  Betrewv  yeveatv  avoTeXetaOat. 

Fol.  129  s.  'ApKel  de  'lA'avwv  Kat  o  ij/uerepo^  KaBriyenwv 
i Jilifxtapto^  €v  oXtp  r^u  ^vflX'vo  cexKvv^  oti  od  TtXtKov  fiovov 
loXXja.  Kal  TrotrjTtKov  otce  tov  Koofiou  Toy  Beov  6  AptffTOTeXris- 

Fol.  128  ».     To  KOimv    Trji    Twv  7rpoT€pwv   00'^    tlirwif 

»VTUK  evayet   Tt]v  cia<l>opdv'  Kai  yap  Trepi  fxev  to  yeyorivai 

rov    KOfTfiov    iravTO^    ofxoyvwpoifav    tprjcrl    Tovtrre    dfoXoyovr 

V'Kal    TOW    (pvatKovK'    Tail/    ie    yeyovevat    Xeyouro'v    avToif    01 

tev  aiitov    Xeyowrtv,   wtnrep    Op(p€V9    xat    lltJiooos    Kai  fter-' 

iavTovs   o    \^XaTwv  our    <ptjfT'tv   AXe^avdpo^'   Tirev    Ttov   yevtjTOV 

\eyoifTtuf  KOt  tp&apTov  Xtyovct'    dij^ws*  te  Torrro'   01  ihev  yap 

ovTitf  <p0apTuf  iixnrep  oTtovf  aXXo  Ttov  avvioTny-evtav  aTo/iaJc* 

oXov    "^wkpartjs    <bOftpOM€vov   uirnvTa    avTov    kui    ttu^ii'   (hB^i- 

pfcBai  Xe-ycf    kcU  atdiot'  elvat  Ttjt'  ToiavTtjv  ctodoj^riv'  wcnrep 

£^ixc6oxA^9    Ttjv    <t}iXlav    Xcyei    Kat    to    vtlxm    irapa    i^-epo^ 

fTTtxpuTovvra'  t*)**  fiet'  avt-ayet  Ta  iravTa  eis  €f  Kat  tpBcipttv 

TOV  TOV   yetKov^  KOtTfAOVf  Kat    voteiv  e^  avTov    Tor   <T<paipov' 

TO    oe    veiKo^    otoKpivtiv   't^aXt^^  Ta   OTot^cm    Kal    irotetw    tov 

Koafxov'  TovTa  t€  '  V4LTredoKXtj^  ar}ftaivci  Xcywv 

/WXore  fjLtv  <pi\6TriTt  cwtpyonevov  ei«  tv  d-x-avra 
'AAXore  ^  av  ^I'j^a  efcatrra  <J>opovneva  veUtiK  €-)(0€t 
H   ce  iraXtv  ciodH'iTov  et-ov  TrXfoi/  fKTeXe&owfiv 
tyvovTaiTe  Kat  ov  <T(pitrtv  fftirocoa  antf 
'il  5«  ^taWaaaotfTa  ^tafiirfpe^  ov^fjtov  X^yeC 
•woTC    fiiv    ikirvpovaBai    Xf'yei    toi*  Koapov'    iroTe    oe  ex  tow 


608  Simplicius  de  Ccelo. 

£d.  Vsnet. 
kXcitoS'  5e  trore  fiev  e^d'TrreaOai  ^tjtri  tov  Kocfxov  irtrrs  oe 
cjc  'JTVpos  av9ti  (rvvt(rTaa0ai  avTov  xara  nvas  ttc/mooom 
j^ovQiv,  €V  oU  (ptfffi  n€Tpa  avdvraiv  Kai  jxsTpa  op€ifvvt* 
TOI/TI7S  ce  t5s  co^ijs  varepov  eyevovro  ot  SrowicoJ*  aXX  ov 
TOi  fiev  ea(r9cov'  OTt  oe  oi  BeoKoyoi  oi)^  u>(  airo  y^povtK^S 
a.p\^i,  aXX'  ws  otto  /Jiovtj^  iroirjTiKtj^  (pacrt  Ttiv  yevetrtv  Toy 
KOCiioVj  jcai  TavTtiv  nvducoK  wtjirep  kov  to7s  aXXoi?  o^\ov' 
6  5*  *£Vi7r6^oK\^9  oTi  5yo  KocT/uoi/s  avvitTTtjtri  TOV  fxev  iji/ai/iciw 
jcai   rorrroi/,    tov  Se   ^laKeKpt/xcvov   Koi  ai<F9ijT0Vt  icai  ort   Ktuf 

TOUTIO    TW    KOafltft  TtJV    CVOXTtV   Opd    KUt  Tt/V    OiaKpUTtVt  €V   aXX<M9 

w(  01/icu  fieTpiws  ex  Ttov  prjfiaTwv  avTou  oeoeiKTai  o  'yap, 
Xfl'ywr  fU(  ooxer  ttcjoi  t^s  tov  xotr^of  ■y^^^'^^^*'^  '^'^'  Tawra 
eypw^ev.  TOV  Koafiov  tovtov  outg  tis  0e£v  ovt€  t«s  avOpnt-^ 
irwv*  €iroiritT€v  aXX    >/>'  tt^'' 

B.  II.  Fol.  91.  i\XX'  OTt  /i6i;  o  ircpi  Tov''AT\avros  fAvOos 
ouoefiiav  wptfTfievijv  avayKijv  eirdyet,  koI  ort  o\  av<TTiiffavT€9 
avTov  eooKovv  koi  avTol  vofii^eiv  fidpo^  ytj'ivov  tu  oupavia 
€-)(€tVf  Kal  Bid  rovTo  XP^^'^*^  dvdyKtii  tivos  efx>pv-)(oo  eirt- 
KpuTovaiji  avrd  c^Xov'  el  Toivvv  SeSewcrai  jUjjTe  ^pvTWiTo^ 
fJL^re  Kou<poTriTa  e-^ovTa  tu  ovpdvia  oriXovoTi  irapeXKutv  u¥ 
6117  d  fAvOoi  6  Sta  Tf/v  tov  (^povi  vevXairfietfos'  ciXX'  €«  fiev, 
vXour/jLa  dvOptovivov  to  Kord  tov  ''ArXavrd  eOTiVi  ck  t^^ 
tou  ^apow  vKovoia^  nXaaQev  e^ifXcyicTai  koto  oKriBelam 
•jrapeXKov  ck  tou  fii^re  (iapvTtjTa  fi^TC  KoufpoTtjTa  toij  ov* 
pavioti  avooeoel-^Oai'  it  oe  juv^o?  wv  Oelov  ti  ev  eavr^  airo-, 
KpviTTet  Kal  tro<l>dv,  Xeye<T9u>  on  6  fiev  '^ArXa^  eU  effTt  Kcd 
avTOi  Twv  trepi  Aiovva-ov  TapTapmv  eipriixevwv'  o\  ota  to 
AuJ  TcXfiittw  vpoaeyeiv  avr^,  TOvreaTi  /ai)  Kara  uovtfv  Ttiv 
Taprdpeiav  trvyKpitrtv  evepyeiv  vepl  t^v  ^lovwxiok^v  evep- 
yeiavf  aXX*  eiriKXiveiv  oirwcrovv  xal  vpot  r^v  oiiov  ffvvoj^tjVt. 
afi^oa  Tdi  i^idri^Txtr  evepyovaC  koi  oZtois  ^4  ^'s  ^v  avTtoy 
xar  afi<pw  TovTa  evepyei  irtpi  to  fieyitrra  fxepti  tov  Koa/uw, 
otcucpivuv  fAev  jccu  dveywv  tov  ovpavov  airo  Ttj^  y^^  <ov  /uf 
avyxeoiTo  ra  avw  tois-  Karw. 

Fol.  91  b.  Koi  d  ixev  koto  toi*  'Ifiowo  fwQo^  <f>rtffiv  ctti- 
Betruai  TOts  T^s''H^as  ydfAOK  tov  'i^iova'  vvipeXtjv  oe  fiefioft- 
<paifi€injv  Kaff  avTtjv  irXiiatocrcu  avT^'  '  tw^^evTOs  Se  avroS 
Tp  vefpeXtj  yevvriOijvat   tov   Kevravpov*     Ztw  5e  yvov%   irtpi 


Simplicius  de  Caelc. 


609 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

vnrpo^  <Twtcrra(T0at  traXtv  avTov'  Kara  Ttva^  y^poywv  treptocovt' 
ev  oh  <j»jai  fierpta  aTrroftevot  Kat  /lerpia  (TuyiJ/iei'W'  raurrit 
5«  T^  ^o^»^  vaTepof  eyevcvTo  Kat  o't  XruftKot'  nXX'  ouroi 
nev  eaaOivaay'  art  c«  o'l  BeoXuyot  ouy  o»v  atrn  jfpoviKtj^  "PV^f* 
aXX  IU9  avo  aiTia^  itoii^tik^v  Xeyovtrt  t^v  yeveaiv  tou  HtMTfiou, 
Hal  Ta  aXXa  uv0l^a^i  ttairtp  Kat  to  aX\a  irpociiXov'  EjUTre- 
ooJcX^?  ce  vTt  Svo  Koafxovi  evoe'mpvTai  tov  t^iv  tjvwfiivov  Koi 
TQv  voifTov'  Toit  o€    otuKeKpifievov  Kat  aiaOijTov'    Kat    otl  koI 

iv     TOVTtf     Tip     KOfffUfi     TIJf    tVOiHTlV    OpO.     KOt     T^M      OtOKpttFtV     €¥ 

aWovi  olfiat  tierpliv^  €k  tmv  avTwv  cfcw^evai  pnfinTwv'  koi 
HpaicXetTos  oc  ot  a'tvtytiaTmv  r^v  eavTov  troipiav  eKipepatVt 
ov  Taura  avep  hoKci  Totv  iroXXois  (ytj}iatv€C  o  yow  eKtiva 
tlTTc  frepi  ycvtacwK  W9  ook€i  toi/  Koafiou  Kal  rade  ytypatpe' 
KotTfiOV  TOP  ce  ouTe  tij  Oeuiy  ovre  avOpwTraiv  ewoitjaev 
'AXX'  rjv  aei. 
"B.  II.  Fol.  159  s  *AXX'  o  n^v  •rrepl  tou  'ArXaiTrw  *fai 
oTi  fiv&tK  ovdcfxiav  avo<:etK'riKtfv  avayKtjv  ci^rcyti*  kui  otl 
ot  avoT^aavre^  avrov  €aKeaav  jcoj  avTot  vo/ii^eiv  j^apov 
e^fii*  yetjpoi^  to  oupavia  *al  cm  tovto  tftfr^al  rivov  avayKtjv 
•ftyj/u-^ov  Tyf  ave-^ovtrtjt  aura*  eiToi  tniu  CecfinTat  fttjTe  f^po^ 
c^oj'To  fi^Te  KtivipoTtyra  to  ovpavta  0^01*  on  irapiXKiav 
o  fiv&o^  av  fitf  oia  T»/r/  tov  ^apoiK  viro\l^iau  irXatrBet^'  aXX 
<i  fi€f  wXao'ua  ti  di»0p</OTrivo»  to  Ka-ra  tov  ArXofTa  tovto 
t<rTiv  airv  t^s  tov  fiapow  uiro\^(a«  TrXaff^ei*,  (tXrjXeKTat 
Tty  oyTt  Tre/jiTTow  eit  tov  ntfTe  ^p<is  fitJTe  KovipOTTjTa  roTy 
ovpav'toiv  uirap\ovTa  niroiie^fi^aC  e'i  oe  nWov  ovTto^  eaTi 
detoi/  Ti  KpviTTov  iv  eavT^  Kat  crotpof,  Xe7^a0tt»  on  AtXw 
ef?  fiev  efTTt  Kat  auTov  twv  Trept  tov  Atavucroi'  Tiravwv  09 
eta  TO  fitf  TeXciw^  e^OfAapTeiv  eis-  auTov  TovT€<m  fii)  kotu 
T^v  TtTaeuc^v  fiovrfif  ^taKpuriv  evepytjirat  vept  Tr/r  ^tovvataK^p 
atj/jiovp^/ia$'f  aXX'  a-jroKXivew  ttojc  Kai  ttooj  t»)i/  oi'iav  trvyoytjv 
dQT  afKpo)  TCLf  tOtoTijTai'  €¥€py€i  irtpt  Tos  fxey'toTav  tov 
KotTfiov  fi€ptoai'  otaKpiviuv  nev  xai  ave^ayp  TOf  ovpavop  airo 
T^r  -y^f  w  fitj  e7rtiTvy)(tl<T$m  to  avio  tok   kutw, 

Fol.  l60  5.      Kat  o  fAte  KaTa  Tov'i^iova  fioOm  tTCiBeaOai 
Xcyci    Tfo  ytifiM  tjJs  ''ilpa^    toi*    l^'iova'  tjji*   ce    rttpeXrjv  fxop 

■■  The  prdiice  and  a  imall  portion  of  the  3d  B.  u  wudag  in  the  C  L'.  Mtf. 
"  US.  Unpiv. 


610  Simplicius  de  Coeh. 

Ed.  Vknet. 

T^ff  ''H^s  T^  "^pox^  iTpoaeoTjo'e  tov  'l^tova  awTe  drrautmat 
9ir  avTov  ipepe<r0ai'  "itrtos  oe  (Ttj/iiaivoi  av  6  /nv9oi  €irtOe(rScu 
fiev  voKtTiK^  Kai  ^aat\tKp  tiw  irpovoia  tov  'l^iova'  rjpw'iKw 
oe  TO  TotovTOV  Ttj^  ^foij^  eloos'  avd^tov  oe  {pavevra  xaO' 
ofioitiXTtv  T^  Ttft  ''kipm  eiowXff}  tivI  uXik^  rac  dfiavp^  t^ 
TOtairri/f  patriXela^  Treptrreaeiv'  oirep  ij  ve<Pe\tj  efid>aivei  atfo 
virdpxpvaa  d/xavpoi  tc  kcu  vXiKutrepoi'  TovT(f)  de  (TVfLire- 
vXey^aTai  fiev  to  ^apvTara  t^v  (^v<tiv  e'iri  twv  \oyiKW¥ 
icai  aXdywv  evepyeiwv'  wpofToeocTat  ce  vtto  too  kot  aJ^law 
icaat  otavefxovTO^  otjfuovpyov  Oeou  to!  t^9  fxotpas  fpoj^  Kai 
T^ff  yeveaeoK'  ov  dZwaTov  MCTaXXa^ot  KaT  'Op<pea  tov  juif 
1*01)9  6eovs  eXei^ffavrai  ofs  cTo^ev  6  Zei/f  dXiTaivoutri  iroc- 
KtKeffOai  Kai  eyKoKtv^eXaOai  ras  dvBpwTrtva^  yj/v^d'S. 


Fol.  97  a>  Kai  NiiroXaos  oe  o  Ileptirarr}TiK09  Trapd<Ppatrlv 
wotovfievoi  Twv  etrravda  Xeyofievwv  ev  ToXi  irept  (piKoaofhitts 
TOV  ApurroTcXow  XeyopevoK  eOrjKe  Ttjv  evvotav  otOTi  ovv 
ov^  oXof  o  KOfftioi  TotovTos'  OTt  avayxij  fievetv  ri  wept  to 
fiiaov  TOV  KVKXtp  <J>€pofxivov,  eTreioff  to  toiovto  frwfia  ouTe 
fievetv  iovvoTo  ovTe  irept  to  iietrov  etvat' 

Fol.  105  a.  'Ejc  tov  ex  CtatpitreoK  €tX^<pOat  ti/v  Sei^ty 
Kai  wpwTOi  avTOi  6  'Aippoot^iew  'AXe^avSp<K  Trpoaeax^ixvai' 
Tif¥  yap  irpoTepav  e^^yijaiv  oijXovoTt  art  dtfayKald  e<mv 
If  eiv  avetpo¥  aveffti  oti  ovk  eiTTt  to  dvaXafx^vov  Tiff  ^vva/jnw 
TOV  vptoTov  KtvovvTOif  Kol  dvoKTw/iievov  T^v  ciovvafiiav  6  AXe^- 
avopov  trap  Eipfiivov  <prt(riv  axijfcoefat  uxrirep  tjv  kqI  ev  toTs 
Tw  'Atr-Trarriov  p^fxaut  yeypafifievov, 

Fol.  106  b.  "Xirapxsiv  fiev  Tiwis  evavTia^  •JcotoTtfra.^ 
c^ovcras  trptK  aXXijXa;  evavTiwnv  xara  to  xfiWfxa  xat  xaTa 
TO  fieyeOoi  iatas  oe  xat  kutu  to  crxifMo,  Kai  yap  ev0vypafi/i.a 
o^/iciTa  effTi  ev  tois  ovpav'toK  irx^iutTurfioTi  dov  Tpiywva 
KOI  ireptipepTi,  oTov  o  <rTe<pavos,  virapx^tv  ftev  ovv  TavTas 
Ttii  evavTtoTijTai  exfl  ^y^pis  Ttvoi  ^va^e/seiof  xat  <p9apTtKov 
iraBovi  aTTOoe^atT    av  tiv  'AXe^avopov^ 


Simplicifts  de  Cctlo. 
Cod.  C.  C.  C. 


611 


tpoKTacav  avu  eat/r^i  avTi^  -TrpoTeivai'  txty^evroi  5e  avTOv 
TJj  feiptXt)  yevi'T)6f}yai  tov  Keirravpov'  yvoyra  Be  rov  Aia 
irepi  T^y  Hpa^  Tpo-^^  tov  '\^iova  evotftraf  ajtrre  awautrrtttg 
vir  avToV  <p€pea0at'  Ta->i(a  de  av  crijtiaivoi  o  fjivBoi  evS^aBat 
fxev  TToXiTwr;  Kal  pauiKiKti  Tiyi  irpovo'uf.  tov  I^i'oi'q'  rfpimov 
oe  TO  ToiouTov  Ti;v  ^oJ^v  flinx'  dva^tov  oe  cia^ai/CKra  xaxd 
otKtjv  T»;9  tlpas  eiowXto  Ttvi  evvXw  irai  TedoXwfiei'to  t^s  to(- 
avTtfv  irpoaTaaia^  •n-epitrecreiy'  oft€p  ^  ve^Xtj  or)\oi  ft^p  oZaa 
ooXiooijs  Kal  vXtKtoTepoi'  TovTtp  ovv  crvuvXaKevTa  Tip  etoet 
ytyvtjffat  mgv  ffVfMipvpffty  XoytKiji  re  Kal  aXoywv  ev€py€tav' 
evteBijvai  oe  viro  tov  to  hot  a^tav  Trao'ii'  aKpopii^oyTaf  otf~ 
/iiovpyov  deov  ev  Ttft  ttjv  tl/napfneirtj^  re  Kal  yepvecew^  ^P^X*? 
ovTT^p  aou'varoi'  aTraXXayijvai  Kara  top  'Optpea'  "mv  tow 
oeovi  eK^ivov^  iXeuMrdftevov  oU  eirexn^cv  o  Zevv  kvkXov  t 
aXXd^ai  Kal  dfi^v^at  KOKOTrjTOi  t«v  dv9ponrivtt\'   ^^t/j^ay.*' 

Fol.  173  r.  Koi  NivoXtiw  2e  o  tleptTraTrrriKOi  7rapa<ppd- 
^wv  Ta  evTauda  Xfyofteua  mv  tocs  vept  'ApuTToreXov^  <ptXo~ 
(Tofpia^  ouTW  TeOetKE  Tr]v  Xi^iV  "cian  ovv  ou)^  oXof  o  ko<t/io^ 
ToiovTO^ ;  oTi  dvdyKt}  fxeveiv  ti  wepl  to  fituov  tov  kvkX^ 
d>€po/iet'Ov'  TO  oe  irejAWTOv  (rtifxa  out«  f±«vei»  *}ovvaTO  ovTe 
t¥  fAsaip  Qivai. 

Fol.  191  s.  Kai  coixe  TouTtp  t^  eV  ctaip€(Te(os  etXri«p9ai 
Tjjy  aTTo^et^iy  ■jrptoTos  airrof  d  A0/wSi<ri6uy  AXe^avopo^  ewttT' 
Ttjcraf  T>;i'  yovv  trpotr/ovfievtip  t^tr/iotv  tov  dvayKatav  ehai 
T»]v  etr  airetpov  avetjw  <va  tcJ  fitj  elvat  to  avaXrjyI/ufxevot'  Tifv 
^vvafiiv  TOV  irpwTov  KiVovvT<K  Kal  ciop0ta<Tou  Ttjv  dovvaMtaif 
(US  'AXe^dvBpiw  TOV  Aiyaiov''^  wapaTiOeTai.  'KpuiVov  Bt  <pttirtv 
i^Kovua  Kadd  ^v  *«'  ^y   Toti  AaTraa-'iov  Kpepofievov. 

Fol.  JD*  «.  '^'0  f*nv  virap-^etv  Tivd'i  ev  Toi<i  ovpai'loi*:  -jroio- 
TtfTav  cytfi'Vas  frpoi  aXXtjXa*;  evavTiwtritf  Kara  ts  yj>uyf».a 
Kai  Kara  /leycOo^,  ^<riv9  ae  Kal  Kard  (r;^»;,ua'  Kal  yap  tv$v- 
ypanfiOi  uyjIifLara  bctiv  ev  toi«  ovpauioiv  a^tjpiaTiafiatv  cu9 
to  BeXTwTov  Kai  €in<pepoypatifxa*'  ais  o  aTe<pavoi'  to  fi€v 
ovv  uvup-^tiv  ravTa^  rd^'  ivavrtai<TeK  «KeX  ^wo'*  Bvnriiv 
SuerY€pela9  xat  ipOopofroiov  ira^ou?  aTroct^aiTO  av  ti«  top 
AXe^dvopov. 

**  AUxMda  KgtMt.    See  F»br.  B.  G,  I.  it.  p.  ST^t. 

Vol.  II.  fio.6.  ^l 


61S 


Simpltdui  de  Calo, 


Ed.  Venet. 

Fol.  11.9  tt.  'Eire*  le  Koi  o  ijiimpo^  &So<ricaXos  'A/i^bivto? 
e/uoy  ttapoimyi  ev  'cWe^av^peltf  TrapaTrjptjtrm  ctrt  (Tw^tartKov 
aarpoXa^v  Tor  dcrepa  ap^rovpoy,  fvpcv  vpoi  Ttj¥  ttaTa 
XlToXeftalov  Cfro^^tiv  avrov  TtxrovTOf  wXeov  KivjjdevTa,  oeroK 
eo€t  Kara  eKa-rov  evtavTov^  filai'  fioipatf  avyKivtjutjvat, 

Fol.  114  b.  'n  e^  avo^Oeia-a  airla  tov  firj  oKOvfiv  rifin^y 
\iyoiMja  aia  to  avi/rptxpov  Kai  to  «0(K  Oavfxai^ui  cl  'roi"? 
WvOayopeiOK  triryxwprjOeltit  ttriyovfxivoi^  tov  WvOayopav 
OKtiKmvm  TQTe  rotavTf\v  apfioptaf^  Kai  Tot  KOKtiyto  trviTpo<pa 
rjv  TaVTo,  wawfp  teal  Toi^  uXXoif  «x>'^m*«ro<v*  tauK  ovv  itaTa 
t£v  at'dptHiv  d}iXotTO(piav  Xvreoi/  Ttjv  evtrrruTti'  XsyovTav,  oit 
ov  wavra  iirrtv  aXXtiXoK  cru/nfACTpa'  ovde  irav  jravn  altrOij- 
Tovy  ovde  Trap  tj/niv'  e/i<paivovai  ce  oi  Kuvti  ocrtPpaifOfievot  to 
riua  fiaxpoBev,  aTtvn  o'l  uvOpwirot  ovk  otrdipa'tvovTaC  Trotrt^ 
or}  ^aXXoi'  tVi  TftJi"  TotrovTov  Ttj  <f>v(T€i  aditfTTQtievwVt  wrov 
Ta  atjjdapra  t<wi/  <p6apTWf  (eat  ra  ovpavta  Tt^v  ynivwv,  aXfjOev 
Xvy€tv   oTi    6  Taiv  Oe'utiv  <rtofiaTa>v    fj^o?  toI*  ytjtvati  OKoais 

OVK      €(TTIV     OKOVtTTOS,     <(      0€     TiS     KOt     TOVTO     TO      yitl'Ol/     tTWpia 

e^rtpi^ievoif  Kat  to  avyo€to€<i  avTov  ovpcmov  Ka04<ipaif,  kuI 
Tos  6V  avT^  aIo''»fo-e«  KetcaOupneva^  ^X***'  ^H"^  ^  ayaBop 
kXijpovy  t/  dia  ptov  .:aXoKayn9ia%^  rj  ci  \epaTui>}v  TifXciaio-iif, 
ovtos  ar  loot  Trt  tois-  aA.\oi?  aopaTa,  KUt  uKovaat  tu  Tofv 
oXXois  aviJKOwrTO*  t^oi  XeycTot  XluOayopa^'  tww  5e  Oelw 
jcai  auXfUM  o-af/AHTCtff  ei  7tw>iTo  T19  ^X**^'  **^^  irXi/JCT»jroc 
ot/T  nivKjoeTiA'oy  ■yiVeruc  aXXa  twi/  yevfiTiKwv  ^ytav  cteyetpci 
Toy  ^vfcijuecf  Kat  to?  ewpyeiay,  (cai  T^y  cri/trTOf^^or  ataBrftriv 
TeXeiot"  (fa*  awiXo^i'at'  fie>'  Tiyw  e^^t  Tr|C^  toi;  vyov  Tof  0*1/1^ 
T^eXoy^a  T^  KtVTfa^t  t^v  yt^iviov  (T<)itxa.Tnn\  twoyeia  5c  tI? 
•(TTii*  1/  Tjy?  Kii^rjaetiK  CKeivtov  tov  aTra0ov<i  ^6<pou  6  irap' 
i^/iiiv  yeifofievw,  6ta  ti;i/  too  ttepo^  VX'^''"**'^*'  <l>v<Tit''  cJ  rottmv 
tKti  arip  iraQrfTtKW  ovk  ea-Ti»  ^rjXovoTi  oi)5'  ar  ^x^  *^V  aXX' 
foi/r«i'  o  HuOayopa^  ovTta  Xeyetv  tj/v  npfioviav  exttvtjv  aurf- 
Koevat  UK  Kuv  toIs  dpt9uo7<;  dpuovucd^  dvaXoy'ta^  vowvt  Kni 
TD  ev  avToif  oxoutTTov  OKovew  eXeyev. 

Fol.  1190.  Kai  irp^Tw  ^EXXrivajv  EvSo^tK  6  Kri^w  w? 
Evctjfioi  ev  T^  cevrepw  Tr}i  dffTpoXoytK^v  'uTTopia^  VTrefiv/j- 
fiaTtaev  Kat  ^otjtyevryt  dtro  Kv^r/juoi/  tovto  Xafiioy  Xeyerat 
ay^aaQat   Ttov  roiovTtov   itiroO^crewv  tou    [iXaTwi'os    toy    <f>TttTi 


Simpiicitis  de  Cttn 


513 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

Fol.  20,0  s.  ETrefdi}  oe  Kat  o  ^fierepoi  KaGrfyftitov  'Afji~ 
fxun'tov  efiov  TrapovTov  ev  tiJ  'A\e^at>^pov  Ttip^vav  ^ta  too 
tTTtptov  aiTTpo\apov  Toi*  aptrrovpov  (vpe  wpoy  tijii  koto. 
IlToXefiatov  airoyrjv  avTou  ToaouTov  eTrinvtfGei^a  oaov  iypriv 
KUTa  eKaTOV  STtj  /iiau  ^loipav   avTiKtuovfxevov. 

Fol.  S14  r.  II  fiev  toi  toi/  fi^  UKovetv  ij/iav  airo^oBeiaa 
a'tTut  fi  cia  trufTpotpiav  Kat  avf^Oeiav  XeyoiMra^  OuvfiatCio  ei 
Toiy  ilvOayoptioK  €TrtTp€7r€t'  top  YlvOayopay  \aTopouai¥ 
UKOVtrai  irore  T^y  -rotavTi}^  apjuovia^'  KatTot  hai  extivu 
<TvyTpo<peK  rjr  wairtp  Tois  oXXoty  ai'dptairofi'  /ii/TTOTf  ovv 
Kara  Ttjv  tvov  avcpanf  (biXotro^'tay  XvTeuv  Ttjv  etHfTatriVi  Xe- 
yotrra^  oti  ov  iravra  dW^Xois  cittI  trvpfierpa'  oiJde  -jravTi 
a'ttrOriTov  ovoe  trap  tjfiif'  dtfXova-t  oe  o'l  icvfc^  otrippawofjievoi 
Twv  ^oMUf  irvpptoifei/'  o't  ot  avBptairot  ovk  o(r(ppuivovTat'  iroam 
St)  fiaXXoy  €7rt  roiv  ToaovTov  t^  ipiiaet  dienTrfKortov  offov  to 
a<p6apTtt  TMv  <f>6apTiJjv  Kat  Ta  ouptivia  Tcav  eviyeiwv'  oKrjQes 
elweiv  oTi  o  Tttty  Oeitutf  awfiaTuv  r/^09  tuk  avuc^poiv  nxMiSs 
OVK  eoTiv  ojiOvaTos'  el  oe  tis  kui  tovto  to  tTwua  to  eTr'iKtfpov 
e^ripTiffxevov  to  avTO€ii>ev  avTov  ku'i  ovpavtov  o^rj/jia  Kat  Tcip 
ty  auTtji  ai(rdff<7«<r  KexaOapfteva^  '^X°^*f*  ^  *'  ^'^  f^o^f>'^<^^*  9 
St  ft/^wiar*  ^  TT^Oftj  TovTot^  oi  opaTiKt^v  T€\e<TtovpyiaVf  ovToi 
ay  i^ot  Ta  Tots-  aXXoiy  aopuTa'  Kai  aKou<Toi  to)*^  xoiy  aWota 
fttj  OKouonevtuv'  wffirep  6  HvOayopai  lOTopeiTai'  detaw  Te 
Kal  aCXwv  awfiaTdov  Kav  ci  yevoiTo  ti^  ^o(jbo9  ovt€  TrXrjKTtKOi 
«i/xe  anoKyaiwy  yivtTuty  aXXa  twv  re  yevetrtuvpy^v  VX***^ 
oieyeipet  tos  ouvatuu  «ai  Tay  eivpyfia^'  Kat  tvjv  ovotoi'^ov 
a'taOrftriv  TcXeioi'  Kal  avaXoyov  /itii  e;^e(  Tiua  Tppos  tov  yl^otftow 
Toi»  avvttpevovTa  Ttj  Ktvrjaet  twv  eiriKrffiatv  cw/j.uTtov'  cvkpyeta 
Se  TK  iaxtv  Tt/s  cKCiwoy  xtv^ewi  aTraOtfS  tov  "^ftxpov  trap 
rifiiv  yivofxcvov  Sia  Ttlv  ijj(ttTrjv  tov  aeooy  (f>vtriv'  el  ovv  CKei 
ai/u  traOrfTiKW  ovk  ecTi,  criXov  oTt  ovot  ^6<pov  av  efq"  aXX 
ioiKev  o  T\vOayopa^  ouTto  Xeyea0ai  t^s  apfiovias  etnimjt 
OKouety  axjei  Kat  toi^  ev  tois  aptdfioli  apfXovtKOVi  X(Kyoi>i 
€wo<av'  Kat  TO  ev  ai/roiy  aKov<rrov  wcoveiv  eXeye  tj/s  ap* 
fiovia^' 

Fol.  223  a.  Kat  trpwras  rwv  'EXX^v'jtf  EvSo^ot  o  Kvi~ 
Stoi  ws  EvS*tp^  T€  €v  Ty  ^evTeptp  Ttjs  uaTpoXoy'tai   ttrropim 


»  US,  td. 


614 


Simpticiutf    de   Cceh. 


TauTa  trvov- 


Kd.  Venet. 

!Sowi*ycKi;?  Trpof^Xtjfia  tovto  xoiouirros  Toi^  irept  • 
5afowri,  Tivojv  vtr(yTe0€ttTwv  6/ia\wv  xat  -rerayfieiwy  Ktvrjtrewv, 
trt^oLVT  av  Tcl  vepi  -rav  /ciin/o-et?  T€0v  irXavtjTwy  (patuo/xeya ; 
ei  To'irvv  V7ro0«rei9  eitri  ?r\eioi/s  icafi  cjcao'TO>'  twm  TrAaww- 
fiftfojvt  TOW  TrXeloifs  i/irapveti'  toi?  trtotAaat  TrKetoatv  overt  mmj- 
ffets.  KOI  ou  i^aT  aAv"€iap  ovTit}^  virapyovaai  oetKvuvraty  m 
trtmaivet  to  aXAoi^  aXXtus  avTus  UTroTi(?f(Tf^(u  ri^  ^  oi^'yciy 
w  (COT  oAifdeiav  •irXeiowui'  irra/ffj^orTiuif  <rui^Tiwv  -jre/x  era- 
OToi/  ToJy  TrXafw/iciwif  jtai  hia  tovto  TXtiovwf  KivrjtrciiJv,  ouTti> 
TO  utTtov  ^jjTeii/,  3iOTt  ol  €yyv<i  ti/?  aVXatwt/s  irXaKifreT 
vXeiou;  (ptpovTat  <popa9  ij  oi  e<r^aToi  ;  tffitK  oe  ei  «»  xoA- 
/lair  dXu'S  i^^as  toiqi/tos  Trotftv  (TvyKp'tc^Kt  of  Xjoos  Tas  Toirj 
Toirwc  otaipopa^  Ta  ociitofiaTa  avTbiv  oioplo'aaBai  o»'0"yw*f*' 
ciXX'  Mfi*  <pa¥ai  cKaaTov  rerayQai  €v0a  trpoaijicov  tjv  ry 
TrayT*.  Twy  oi/*-  wo  aeXrjvrjv  oiiy^  €-)(Ovrtov  o'lKeiov  ^wy  aX\ 
f^wflev  0wTiroA'^i't^»'»  fiKOToiy  (bairf  av  Tts-,  oti  xa  iivo  tov 
ico<Tfiov  ^xoTa  vtrep  avTov  Trpoireyiot  TCTayneva  earif  Ttfir 
airXoT^Ta  ttrtoi  twv  Kivtjaewv  (rara  to  afifivov  tou  (tvuG^tou 
c^orra. 

Fol.  150  a.  Ae'yci  Toiwv  oTt  ri  c(pcupa  ij  to  aa~rpou 
€j(ov<ra  TO  TrKavdffOat  Xe'yo/iei'or,  ev  7roXXat9  aAa'tpaK  atf- 
XiTToyacus  xaXoi/fxefaif,  i;  (w  o  0€o<ppaaTo^  avTaf  KoXel 
oj/XofOTt    rftjTptOficvtx^,   €VO€aen€vr}    fhepeTat. 

Fol.  ISO  a.  EiprjTai  otj  wpoTepov  oti  6  TWaTtuv  rac* 
ovpavlatv  Ktvrfoeai  to  KVK\oT€pe%-  xat  ofiaXov  Kal  reTaynevov 
aoiaXeiwTtMis  aTrootooiJj,  wp6^\t}ua  Toly  fiaOijfiaTtKon  irpov- 
^v€v'  rivwv  vvoTeBein-wv  ci  ofiaXaiv  «ai  KvKXorepon'  Kat 
TeToyfievtav  Kivtitretovy  ovVaToi  frw^^eaOat  ra  trf pi  tos  irXa- 
vwfjieifa^  <pQtv6fJiiva ;  koi  oti  TrpiifTo?  Kt/co^oy  o  KviSto^  iite- 
•retrev   eij    ras    vmBetreK   tos   oi     dvcXiTTotATwv   KoKovftewx^ 


oetrra   tier    ApurroTcXov^  otopOwv  Kat  dvairXrtpuu.     'Apttrro 
TeXei  yap   vofii^ovrt   ^7y  vavra  to   ovpdvta   wtpi    to   fiitrov 
TOO  Ka$o\ov  KiveiaOat   rjp^trev  ij  viroBttrK  twv  awXirrofffw 

**  FalHiciut  had  Hwncled  ihii  in  his  Index  to  Simpllclus. 


SimpliciiM  de  Casio, 
Cod.   C.  C.  C. 


616 


airefjiVt}tiovcva6  ko!  Saxn'/ei/f}^  Trap  V^vorifiou  tovto  XafiwVf 
ayj/naOai  XeycTai  twv  Totovrtav  itiroOeaewv'  TWaTwvfK  ws 
^rjffi  "ZiMTiyevrjs  •n-po^Xtjua  tovto  Trotrftjafiet'ov  Tofs  wepi 
TavTa  ea'TTouSaKoiTt*  Tivfov  vwoTeuetTtov  onaXaiv  kui  TeTay- 
fievMv  KiVTfu^wv  6ietTwBrj^'  tol  irept  rav  Ktvtjtjen  twv  TrXavco- 
fievtuv  tpawvfjieva'  e'l  ouv  viroBetretf  euriv  ai  wXeiotfe^  KtS 
€KafTTov  Tuiv  -TrXavta^eviuv  TrXetovoiv  ovaai  (TtiyfiaTtDv  KWtieren 
Kat  oy^  it>s  KaTO.  aXt'tBetai/  ovtq}^  e-^ovtrai  aTrodeiKvuvTai'  o>? 
^tfXot  TO  aXXof  aXXwi  avTOS  viro0e<T0ai'  tw  avayKrj'  to%  icoT 
dXtjOetav  irXetovo}!'  ovtwv  tUv  trw/iarwy  wept  €Ka(TTOf  twv 
awXavtiv'  Kat  dtd  tovto  wXetovwf  KivrjceMv  oi/Ta>y  airiav 
l^ijTeiv*  6id  Ti  ot  wpoae-xei^  ttj  oVXaret  7rXai»»/re9  irXe'iova^ 
<p€povTat  tpopd?  Twv  ea-^aTttiv'  fxtj-jroT€  oe  ei  ^j;  ToXfxav 
o\(uv  tjfjids  ToiavTa^  TrotetaOai  avyKpia-et^,  ov  npo^  Ttov  tottwu 
oia<ftopav  Ta^  agi'a?  avTU}v  d<fhtpii^tiy  avayKTj'  aXX  SKei  Xeyetv 
eKaerTov  TeTavOat  ev0n  Xv<TtTeXct  Ttft  -jravTi.  twv  ouv  vtto 
ceX^uf/M  ^»/  e-j(OvTwv  oixetov  ibmi  dXX'  e^atOev  ^wTi^ofxevwvt 
e'tKOTOK  ^a'lrj  av  ti¥  oti  ot  cvo  tow  xoaftov  i^ioaT^peK  vir^p 
avTa    TTpoffc^wy   CTayS^cav'    to    dirXovv  1<tws   twv   Ktvtjaeav 

KaTa    TO    Kp€tTT0V    C^OVTfS    TOV    <TVt^€TOU. 

Fol.  925  r.  Ac-yei  ovv  on  tj  trfpcupa  tj  to  fv  atTTpov 
9yov(Ta,  to  irXavaaQat  Xcyo/jtet'oc,  ei*  iroXXais  ofpa'tptwi  rats 
aveXtTToutrat^  KaXovfxevat^'  tj  lot  o  0eo<Ppa<TTo^  avTa^  KoXetTai 
avatTTpm*;  evoevefitvr}   <PepcTai. 

rol.  226  r.  Kai  etpr/Tat  kcu  wpoTepov  oti  o  YWartav 
Tot^  wpaviati  Ktvtitrefft  to  eyKvxXtov  xal  ofj.aXev  Kal  TtTay- 
/jtevov  avevSotntTTws  aTrooicJovff  Trpo^Xijua  tois  fiaBijuaTtKols 
TTpovTitve'  Tivwv  UTTOTcSevTwv  ci  ofioXwv  Kat  eyKUKXiojv  Kal 
Terayfiivwi/  Kivijirewv  Svvti<T€Tai  SiarTwBtjvat  to  ir^pl  tovs 
irXavaffiicfovs  {paivofieva.  Kal  art  frpwTO^  Evoofo?  o  Kvtdtov 
eirefSaXe  rai?  cia  twv  aveXtTToutrtov  KaXovfievwv  <r<patpwv 
vw<Se<T€(ri'  KdXXiTTxos  oe  o  Ktr^(K*;ro9  {loXettdp-^tp  tTv<T\o- 
Xaffas  Tip  lc.vc61^ov  yvwplfuf*  KOt  m€T  eKtivov  fis  'ABrjvn^ 
eXQwVy  Ttf  ApttTTOTeXet  trvyKaTeliiw'  to  vno  tov  livc^^ow 
evpeOevra  avv  t^>  AptaToreXei  oiopOovfievos  re  iraJ  vpoaa- 
vuTrXtjpwv.  Tijfl  yap  ApiaToTeXet  vofiii^ot^Tt  ce^r  to  ovpdvta 
vavTu   irepi   to   ficaov   tov  iravTos    Ktvu<rdat    ^pxetrev  ij   rwv 


"**  Ms.  6tavi»$n. 


ffl6 


SimplmtM  de  Caio. 


Ed.  Venkt. 

VT^aTiOe^Aevri  ofAOKe*n-pov9  rrp  travrt  rat  aveXiTTOvtra^  ouK 
eKK^trrpovs-  uHjirefi  vtrrepov.  Tip  Toirvv  Evoo^ty  Kai  tois 
wpo  avTou  tf^Jrei  o  ^Xtov  T-pciy  Kiw^trdai  Kiin/irrts'f  Tiyr  t« 
cifKovoTt  Tr/v  avXttvovi  ff<paipav  Kivyjaiv  air  atfaroXuit'  nrj 
otHTfiai  7repiayofi£fiK  Kut  at/ruV  eg  evavria-i  cin  tcum  6ajo€KtR  ' 
^owittiv  Kivovtxivoii  KOt  Tp'tTtpf  Tfiv  eiri  tou  ouz  fieaou  tojv 
l^toouov  ciri   TQ  TrXfi*^    airoppotav. 

l''ol.  121  a.  OuTe  ^e  to  tov  KaWiirjrov  evprjTat  to 
^v^Xlov'  oirep  ^aitj  av  to  airtov  r^  vpotrBtaenK  toUv 
trtpaip^Vf  ov6'  6  'AptcTToTeXjj^  avTtjv  TrptxreBtjKfv'  o  oe  Et^oi/juoc 
ina  fipa^ewv  avTov  \ey€ivt  on  eiirep  ot  fiera^u  txoi'  Tpowwv 
xat  Twv  l<Ttj/jiepiiau  -^^ovoi  Toaoirov  ^ta<p^pova-iy  oaov  -rtp 
iW/uaioPi't*'  Kai  Ttjy  }*\efivoyi^  e^oKetf  ovk  e^apKovcriv  a\  -rpel^ 
a<patpat  eKa-repw  tt/oop  to  (rttii^etv  to  (paivofteva,  cia  Trfv 
(patvofievrjv  dtjXovOTt  dvtaiiaXiav  ev  Tatf  Ktrrjaectv  eKelftov. 

Fol.  122  b.  'Ok  Ttva  KOt  KdXXtvjro9  o  Kv^iKtjvoi  ewet- 
paOij  atai^ety,  tov  Evdo^ou  fi^  o\/vrfBevTo^  stTrep  tcrwi  etrttxrev' 
aXXa  tout'  at/ro  t?/  o\^€l  (^vepov^  ovlcU  ayrwr  /j^€-)^k 
AvToXvKOV  Tou  llvti/aiov  eireOcTo  cia  twv  vitoOeacwu  oei^eu' 
Ka'tToi  ovv  ai/Tos  AvrokvKOi  icvvt'iBr]'  <pavfpa  o  auToO  jj 
oia<popd  vp09  'ApiaToOeoi*. 

Fol.  124.  b.  Kai  ovToj  pev  auTos  to  twv  VluOayopfiatv 
cfeXa^*'*  o\  oe  yyTfatefTTeftov  auTwv  fi€TacrxoPTeSf  to  fiey 
TTVp  ev  Tui  jueatp  tpatrl,  ti/c  otifiiovp^/iKtjy  cvi'afitv  «ic  tou 
juieaov  oXtiv  tt/v  ytjv  TpeipuvaaVf  Kat  to  ^j/trxo/xfvoy  avT^ 
dveyfipovffav.  vi  o  o\  /lev  7.rivw  irvpyor  avTo  KaXov<riv' 
tas  avToi  ev  Toiy  XlvBayope'tcri^'  CirjiyrjaaTo'  ot  de  ^iov  <pu- 
XoKtjyt  W9  ev  tovtok'  o'l  ve  Ato9  &p6vo¥f  uk  aXAot  <patriv, 
avTpov  oe  Tify  yt)v  eXeyov,  tw  opyavov  koi  avTi^v  tov  XP***'***'» 
^fiepmv  yap  etrTiy  avrtj  Kai  vvKTwy  airia'  tj/xepav  yap 
irwei  TO  "Trpo^  tov  ijXtov  fiepo^  ^toTtl^Ofxeyoy^  pvicra  oe  to 
irpos  Toi»  Ktoyov  Ttj^  aKias  rijs  yivofieyf}^  vtt  avrfji'  avrtypova 
Be  Tijy  (reX^vttv  ckoXovv  ol  lluOayopeiot  Kat  a'lOepiov  y^rj 
aal  ws  ewivpoo^oinjav  Ty  ^Xiaicy)  ^wri  oirep  etrrtr  i«ov 
T^  yth-,  ««i  ws  opi^ovaav  Ta  ovpdt'ta,  Mcnrep  rj  yjj  to 
vwo  (reX^vtjp* 


**  Fain-.  diMglii  this  ibould  be  'A\«tMMi«ri  ■ 


"  t'orr.  by  Fftbr.  rigbUy. 


Simpliciua   de    Cttlo. 


617 


Cou.  C.  C.  C. 
av(\iTTOv(rtav  vvo0c<rti  wi  ofiOKevrpoiK  uitrirep  o'l  varepov*". 
HLvco^ij)  To'ivuv  Kal  Tol?  trpo  avTov  rpciv  o  »?\tos  evoKti 
KtyetaOai  Kiutiaeti'  Tt)  re  twv  UTrXavwv  <r<f>aip^,  airo  <iva~ 
toXoJm  exi  ovGnai  (FvfnreptayofUVQ^'  Kal  auTos  xi/c  eyavriap 
eta  Twv  ctoocKa  yuotoiy  tp^pofxeviK'  Kai  Tp'tTov  ewt  tov  eta 
lie<Tav  Twv  X^wc'myv  *iy  xd  irKayia  irapeJCTpenofievo^, 

Fol.  228  r.  Ovre  ^  KoXiVirov  (pepcTai  a-vyypa/xfxa 
TTjv  aWlav  Twi'  irpocrOeTewv  TOVTwy  <T<f>atpwv  \eyov,  ovre 
Apta-TOTcXtji  avT^itf  'TrpcHreOtjKev'  Efdij^uov  t)e  (TvvTofiit)^  ksto- 
pfltTVf  TOVTwv  d)aiifotieru)v  eveKa,  Tav'rav  vpoffUfTertit  elvai 
Tny  (jchaipai  m^To'  \fyet  yop  aurov  (btfGiv  mairep  oi  fi€Ta^v 
TpoirtHv  re  Kat  iarjfieptwv^^  -^(jMt'oi  to<tovtov  (nafptpovaw  oaov 

V.VKT*ftJili}VC*    KOt      MeTQifl     £(^KCl'      OV^    'vcaVOi    flvai    TQS    Tpctf 

adiaipa^    tKarepw    irpo^    to     tTaiZeti^    Ta    dxuvontva    Sta    Ttjv 
eTrtd>mvofxt<'*}v  *)t}\oi>6Ti  rats-  ictvt}(T€<Ttv  avrwu  avtoixa\iav. 

Fol.  231  s.  ''Evta  KOi  KdXfTTTToy  o  Kv^tKtj¥Oi  Evcofoi/ 
fijj  ovi'tjOevTos  eireipaOii  ciaacjaai'  einep  a  pa  xai  cie<rco<Tey 
aX\  fWToye  tovto  oirep  tcai  Ttj  o^/'f*  wpoatiXoy  eff-rty  ovdeh 
avTuty  M^XP^  '^^'^  '^'^^  AvtoXvkov'^'  tov  YliTavaiov  eirv^X^TO 
eta  Twv  v-jr(^e<T€wv  emoei^at'  Ka'iTot  ovoe  avros  Ai/toXuko5 
ijoui'tjdrj'    oT}Xot   ce    ij    irpos    ApujToQrjpov'^    avTov   via(popu. 

Fol.  235  5.  Kai  ovtw  fieif  avro9  tA  raw  X]v0ayopeia}v 
oxcoc^aro*  o'l  ce  yi'tjaiwT€pov  ai/ToJi'  fteToxr^otfres  'rrvp  imei> 
ev  Ttfi  fAb'tjtp  \eyov<Tt  Trjv  oe  vijiuovpytKyjv  TavTt}\'  cufa/xtv  Ttjv 
9K  /leaou  -Tratrap  t^v  yijv  ^tuoyovovcrav'  xal  to  aTreyj/vyfievov 
avTtji  avaOaXvovaav'  Sio  oi  fxev  "Zayoy  "tiI^oi/"  outo  KaXovatv 
UK  auTOi  fi*  Tois  V]v9ayoptKoi\  'iaT6pT}(Tev'  o'l  ce  " A*ot  tpvXaKt)v, 
ait  €tr  Toi/Toii-'  oi  ce  *'  A(0¥  Bpoi'ov  «v  aWoi  fpnxiiv'  turrpow  o€ 
Tt}v  y^v  tfXe^oF  ojy  opyavovKat  avTtjv  ^ovov'  tjntpwuyap  fcrri 
Kat  rt/KToii'  airta  rjfxepav  /lev  yup  woiet  to  frpo^  t^  tf\uir  ftepo^ 
KaTaXaMTrofxevij'  vvKTa  bk  KaTo.  tov  kwvov  t^t  yi¥Ofi.€Vrt^ 
a-TT  atlriys  tr/cias'  dvTi-^ova  cc  Ttjv  (reX^vrjV  ckoXow  o'c  Wv9a- 
yopttot'  wiTirep  Kat  a'ldeptau  ytjv  koi  ws  avTt(ppaTTovtTay  xat 
€Trtirpo<T9ovffav  Tto  tjXtuK^i  (ptoTt'  otr€p  ioiok  'y^s-  Kai  tu?  oiro- 
TrepoTovaav  Ta  ovpavta'  Ka6av€p  tj  ytj  to  wo  treXtivrjv. 


••  ii6*.owv  in  prob«bl]r  undmrood  here.  "  M9.  lo-tiur^^. 

*■  Encuinon,  an  Athenian  utrtMiomer,  catanponry  of  Mcton,   Fabr.  B.  Or.  t.  II 
p.  84.  "  MS.  (tAtrroX^Au.  •*  I  find  no  account  of  ihts  author. 


61 U  Simplieiti^  de  Calo. 

Ed.  Vbnkt. 
Fol.  127  a.      ayvvto   6e    to??   tov   ^tXo^evov  p^fiatrt    Toit 

wept    TOVTtaV    OVK    €lfTV^UM'- 

Fol.   J27  b-      uHTTrep     ireTreipafAai     Kayw     ev     rtp     }ioppa 

We  now  come  to  the  notable  fragment  of  Empedocles 
preserved  by  Simplicius,  which  I  shall  exhibit  from  the 
Corpus  MS.  without  comparing  it  with  the  paraphrase  of 
the  Venetian  edition,  as,  that  ha:;  been  already  done  bv 
Mons'  Peyron,  but  I  shall  note  by  the  way  the  various 
readings  of  the  Turin  MS.  as  they  have  been  published  by 
him;  whence  the  reader  may  judge  of  the  superiority  of 
the  Oxford  lextj. 

Fol.  244  r.  Kat  TTMj^a  ov^f  KwXvet  •KopuBeaBal  Ttva  twp 
Tou     E^LTredosXeovv   eirtuv  tiwto   oTjXovvTa. 

AvTap   eyw   iraXivopuos   eXa<rofAat^   tviropou^   ufivwv 
TOi*  irpoTcpov  KOTeAcfo   Xoyoy  Xoyov  e^o-j^cTevatv^ 
Kctvov'   eirei  veiKo^  fiev  cvcpraTov  iiccto  fiet'Bo^ 
^iw/V'*'   ep  ^e  /ue'iT»;  <piX6rtfi  <rTpo(pa\iyyi  yeinjrut 
€¥  T»l  S*/,"  Ta^e  iravra  avvip^erai  ev  fiovov  etvai 
'"xow  Ka(f>ap  aXXa  OeXtjfxa  <TVV€<TTaKev    aXXoOev  aXKa 
Twv  ce   re  fiKryofievwv  X'ftT    eOvea  fxvp'ia  BvtjTwv 
TToXXa  o    afUKT    eartjice  KFpaafjfvotaiv  et'oXXcif**' 
oca    en    ►'cTfcos  epVKe  fi^Tfipawv  ou  yap  afxefxtpeat^ 
TTOJ  wav  e^eaTtjKEV  ew    etrj^ara  TCpfiaTa  kvuXovi- 
ciXXa   TO.  fjiev*'  t'  tve^tfive  fitXtwy  Ta6    efc/3ff/^v«:ci" 

f  ThcAe  cxtncu  were  Ib  the  picas  before  I  ha<i  tUieoverwi  ih«i  I>r  fluBfotd 
had  fclTeady  published  the  fngmenU  of  Einpedocle*   »nd    pBrnienides    quoted    by 

Simplicius  wi:h  Uic  rauliiiKS  «''  ll'«  t-'on*""  "i"!  ^'  t^"-   ^''^'**  '"  '''*'  -"^PP™^-  *» 
tht  Ul  Vol.  of  hi*  Poeu  Min.  fir.  p.  xli— jtlvL     In  one  or  two  insiancc*,  rapccially 
in  I.  R.  I  iw  thii  1  have  rmd  ihe  C.  C.  M8.  dieerentlr  from  Out  cmioenl  scfaolar. 
»  Tut.  .MS.  p.  27.  Peyr.  iKtiaotiai. 

*  iv  tripof.  "  irM-o-j^freiiiev. 

•"  ouK  aipop'  dW  iBiXriaa  avynrraniv'  d\Xo6ni  ilXXa.  Il  l»  Ca»y  to  Me  from  the 
Coq>.  MS.  that  the  true  reading  ia  o6*  difiafi.  The  New  Coll.  MS.  re»di  ovk  d^pa 
dWd  &t\t}fia  trui/i^^dfitv. 

**  Thi*  mnd  the  two  following  venct  te  very  covruptiy  giveo  in  the  Turin  MS. : 
IIoX\u  ti  Ufa  nartrrtfuu  •r«^aiJo^/m>«»ti' 
J\Xd£'  wfff'  fri  wiK<K  tfiUKt  fie-rdpatoV  uii  ydp 
df<pv4U'M  T-tl  'wdv  i^itTTJiKtv  i-w    ivra-ra  nutiXow, 
N.  C.  M8.  *w'  itfT-aTo  T«il^«Tfl  KixXoi-,  and  •bovo  Mpman^wmtv  tvitXXaf. 


Stmplicius  He  Calo. 


619 


Cod.  C.  C.  C. 

Fol.  240  8.       ayvow   oe  eyia  to??    Hcf o^tdtrovr   street    tois 

Fol.  242  r.       W9    etrttpdBtiv    Ktii    eyw    Kara     rov     \^opat^ 


norafiiv.** 


ocok"  6    ate*'  vTrepwpoOetri**  twjov  aitv  cirifet 
j/Tio^^i'"  ^iXoTijTos*"  «jue/u^eov"  an^poTW  opfirf 
al-^a  de  0i/i;t'"'  edwovro  ra  trptv  fuidof  aOdfUT    elvat* 
^wpdre  xa   wptv  aKptjra  5*a\Xcf ai'Ta "   <6\ri!dot/r. 

«^  wM  ofifiUT    exijfcv  dretpea  ^  ' Aippo^irtf. 

ydfi<f)ot9  d^Kijaaaa  KaratrrdpyoK  'Aippo^irri. 

•  **«»• 

ei   d    «Ti    cro*"   irept  Twvde  Xiiro^vXoi  eirXero  Tri(TT*r 

waJs  w^arop,  yairjv  re   xai  dSepoi  tjiKiovre 

Ktpva/i€i'b)v  ctctjre  yevoluTo  ^potaTe  fivijTtZv 

Toia  oaa  vvv  ycydaat  avvap^ocBevr    ' Afbpoo'tTri. 
«  »  •  •  •  *  ' 

ai9   oe   TOTS  yOova    Kvwpti  ewftr    editfvev^*   €V  o^i^pto' 
i;   2e   o 


airoTrveovaa"'  6a>d'^   irupl  dcou 


S7 


Kpai 


Trutf  o    01       etrw  /uec  irt/xca,  rati    cucrott    luoi'a      ireTrtjye 
Kvirpicos  €if    iraXa/iJjo'i*''  irXadi;?   Tot^3ff  xvj^octo. 


**  oav9v,  **  i/T<Kirpo0toi. 

**  Tbe  BoiTui  or  Borraa  is  a  river  of  Persia  oo  the  eoofints  of  loilia  ( Plln.  ti.  SA) ; 
but  M  it  in  vtrj  anlikelj  thai  Siinpliciua  went  no  fut  tato  that  country,  I  tbouU  pn>- 
]>ow  rc»din(C  Xa^»par.    The  New  College  MS.  necms  to  favor  tbiit  conjecture,  ai  it 


*'  f]  irioipfiia». 

*■   tpiX0T1l%, 

*9  dfi^*vvito». 

••  4'  Ifvcdr*  i^v<ovT«. 

X.  C.  afi*pttro¥. 

*'  ^XXa^arra. 

*»  £4  wp«T-. 

N.   C.   ^ifiirft»TQIt. 

»  tl  M  Titfi. 

**  jJfiVvvcji. 

N.  C.  ii4ixpt€i>  iv  iftfipf. 

**   <lvOT»«f«V9a> 

**  8a<p. 

•T   2«K«. 

"&r»'. 

*•   JflfTflP*^, 

••  wa\«^<ivii'. 

Vol.  II.  No.  (i. 

4K 

630  Simpliciua  de  Ccelo. 

Ed.  Venkt. 
Fol.  lS6b.     'O  "yap  ' ^parocdevft^  t^v  otto  twv   »/>^Xo- 
Tarw  opmv   irpo^   Ta   vdHifieva  trivTovtrav   KuBeTOV    oe/icwo't 

yowrav  a'Taolcov  oexa. 

B.  III.  Fol.  138  a.  TpiY^  otaipoufievtiov  twv  wept  yeve- 
(rear;  oo^mv^  koI  yap  oi  /iCF  rravTairafft  'yewffiv  dipaipovvrat, 
•jrayra  ra  orra  ayevfjra  Xeyoyre^f  5*a  to  Tmv  ytvtrrwv  irai 
<pdapTwv  /«i)  elvat  yvweriVf  trapappeovrwv  aurtov,  w9  JCIap- 
fievl^tjs  Kal  MeXuFO-09  e^Kovi'  Xc^eiy,  o'l  5'  ef  etraprcas  toiJ- 
Tots,  ftjs  'Hclooos  Kal  T*)i;  /loXuTTa  OjO^jJi'  tw*"  wap  avr^ 
yeyetrOat  T^eyeoVf  irpwTov  fiev  X.dos  e^eyevcTOf  oi  oe  tu  (mjcv 
ytvetr^ai  tbatriv,  ev  oe  fioyov  oijXovoTt  to  Kotvov  vwoKei/^evov 
dyey/jTov  clyai  dnztriv,  d<^  ov  t  oXXa  yiv^Tat'  wtnrep  'H/xz- 
ffXeiToy*  01  oe  ovoev  <TWfia  dyevrjTov  etpai  <pa<Tiv,  ciXXa  trdyr-a 
yivetrOcu  tf  evitre^mv  irvvTtBefieya, 


The  Corpus  MS.  exhibits  some  various  readings  in  the 
fragments  of  Fannenides  which  may  be  worth  noticing. 

Fol.  259  r.     Xi^'^  ^^  ^^  trdvra  trvBeoBat 

ft*'   fi^v  dXr^eliji,   ei/iti/icXeoff"  aTpefie^  rjrop 

ij  5a  ^povTwv  lo^av^f  x^**   owk  evi  TrfcTTis  aXifdijff 

aXX    efi'TTtj^  KOI  Tovra  fiadijcrfai  ws  to  ooKot/vra 

^^v  ooKiixow  etvat  did  wavTo^  vdvra  irep  ovra'^. 

«««««« 

ev  T^  trot  irav(rm  irurroy  Xoyov  ijce  votjfia 
dfi<^t  fiXffieU:^  ^^a^  5'  ciTro  xow^e  ^poreia^ 
fiavOave  KotTfiov  ifiwy  eireaiv  diraTrjXov  dKouwy 
•jrapaoov^  oe  tjjf  twv  a'urOijTav  ctaKo<Ttitj<Tty  einjyaye  waXiy  ovrw. 


Fol.  138  b.  AXXa  fcai  o  MeXtfTiTos  K€<poLXaittme<rTepov 
ypa<ptoy  aaibeaTepov  ert  tiJi*  eauToD  Trepl  rovrwy  yvw/xtiv 
aire<pijvaTo  oi  oXov  tov  Xoyov.  ov^  ^Kitrra  ^e  xai  ev  TOt» 
e'lptjfievoK'   etrrwv  yap   vepl   tov  ovtos,  oti  ev  xdt  dyevrfrov 

•'  Cod.  Taur.  if.  "  Cod.  T.  «frr.M««. 

«  Cod.  T.  ij  a  fipormv  arffat.  «  Cod.  T.  Tatv. 

Cod,  T.  )y)ij  ioKlfimt  livai  iid  wairrds  irdvTa  ir#/>«vTo. 
••  Cod.  T.  d^^lt  rfXn9f£i|t. 


Fol  S55  s.      *0 


SimpHciua  de  Ctgio- 

Cod.  C.  C.  C 

'  EpaToa0€inj9 


631 


atro  Twv  i/\^^\o- 
TaTwv  opwv  Giri  xa  ySa^aKwTepa.  TriTTTovtrav  KaOeTov  dei- 
Kwat  i>ta  TMV  e^  anotrrrjfidTiov  fkCTpovawv  dioirrpwy  OToiimv 
ovaav  ii€Ka. 

Fol.  258  r.  TfiTjoaj^^  oietXe  ras  vtpL  yev&aeto^  oo'^ac' 
«oi  yap  01  /le*"  reXeow  tiJi/  yevetriy  dtxupowTiv,  irdin-a  to 
ovra  ayevtj-ra  Xtyovre^'  did  to  toj*'  yevrjTwv  kui  tpOapruv 
fjLTf  elvai  yvuictv'  del  peoirrwv  avT^v,  wc  l\apne¥ior^  xal 
MeAiauof  eooKOVf  \4yetv'  oi  ce  aircvavria^  rotfTtov  uJv  Hal- 
oooi,  icai  TO  trptoTKTTov  Ttov  irap  avTw  yevcaOai  Xeywv,  ep 
M  MOM)v  TO  KOfvoi'  vwoKe'i/xevof  dyevrjTov  (paffiv  ef  ou  Ta 
aXXa  •yij-cToi,  wtrirep  WpaxKciro^'  o\  oe  ovocv  ayevt/TOv  oCafta 
Xeyovaiv  oXXci  irdvra  yivetrBat  cf  eirtxe^v  fUvTot  trvvrtBi* 


"— ^-^  TO  Kara   oo^av      edto  Tao€  Kai   wv  taat 
«ai  fitT    CTTCira   ttot    ot/i'e   TeXei/TTjtroyffi   ypa<povT€i 

TOt(    O      OlV/Jl     acd^TTOt    KOTc'dei'TO    CTTIfff/jUor    CfcaoTi^     . 

«  •  »  •  «  * 


cffj^QTos",   tjd    atrrptDv  Oepfxwv^  fj^vfK  wp/iitf$it<Ta¥ 
yip€trOat. 


Fol.  259  r*  'AXXu  xat  MeXw<rof  wf  ffaTaXo7a'5»;i'  ypasf/mt 
xratbiaTepov  eri  t^v  eavrov  -jrepi  tou'twi'  yvt^firjv  e^e(pqve' 
fii  oAov  /ipi;  Tov  Ao'yoi/,  *ca<  et*  toutow  oe  of^  rjKtaTa  tois 
ptjToti'   €i7r(ov  yap  wep*  rov  oi^rov  or*  €¥  €<rrt  xat  ayevjjTOP 


">  Cod.  T.  ovTM  Tilt  «.  A.  '*  Cod.  Ti  vvc  T>  iaamt. 

*"  Cod.  T.  tea)  ^*-rtTr«T"  bVJ  t«W<  -MVeirT^B-tfiKf*  yfiat^ivrm, 
^  Cod.  T.  To«t  i'  itroii   dy0pw»tf«  ncaT^frr'  iic<^<rT9  ivxrii^Mi'. 
"  Cod.  T.  *rw-r*t  i\.  "  Cod.  T.  6.^;u^. 


623  SimpUcius  de  Caelo. 

Ed.  Venbt. 
roi  OKipifTOVf  Kai  Ktvip  ov^ftij  evawetKtffJtfAeifOV,  a\X'  6\ov  ev 
eavT^  «/i7rXcft>v,  trpoariOriaiv'  /leyurrov  /lev  ovv  <Tfffie7oy  ovros 
6  \oyot  ori  €v  fiopov  e<rTtv'  dWa.  fiiiv  km  rao€  trrif^eia'  ec 
yap  rjv  -ttoXXci  Twawra,  e^ct  xai  oi/rd  etvai  owoiov  Kai  eym 
^tjfu  TO  CF  eJnu.  el  yup  ijv  y^,  xal  uowp  Kai  arip  mu 
<rwi}jOOS'  TOi  j(pvarw  Kat  wvp,  jcai  to  fieif  i^wov  to  oe  Qwrfror, 
Koi  fiekav  Koi  XevKov,  Kai  t  oXXa  otra  <paa-lv  o't  aiSpanrot 
vIiHU  dXtjO^t  e'l  o^  TavTa  eaTi  irai  ^/leis  oKt^w  opwfiey  Ktu 
OKooofieVy  elyat  oei  acatTTov  toiovtop,  ottoIov  irpeoTov  eooKet 
^/iiv,  Kai  M-V  AtCTa/3aXXeii',  m*!  ^fl  ylveaSat  CTcpov*  aXX'  del 
c7vai  €Ka<rTov  oirotov  irep  etm*  vvv  ^  (f>afiev  Kpareivy  opap, 
Kai  0X01/611/  Kai  voeXv.  doxei  £c  ^fiif  to  >^-)(pov  Oeppidv  yi- 
vetrOaif  koI  to  Oepfiov  ^t/^^pov'  Kai  to  dopov  oirXov,  xai  to 
^eoov  6vi^tTK€iv  Kai  ovK  CK  ^<ui/ro9  yive(T0at'  koi  TavTa  ■n-asTa 
dTiXotowrOat  Kai  on  ^v  re  Kat  ort  vvv  ovoev  ofiolov  eXwai 
aXX'  o  tri^rjpo^  tXTepeof  virdpxwv,  Ttp  oaKTvKtjt  iru^erai  a/ta 
pewv  Kai  6  X/oi/o'ov,  xal  o  Xidos  icaJ  otiovu  T(ra)9  ootcci  eTifai 
vdv,  totrre  ai/^j3aii/e(  MjiTe  o/fov,  ^i/re  ra  oi^a  'yii'fcio'«r€«/  cf 
voarov  et  yevoiTO  y^  koI  \i9oi'  oukovv  to  To*a5ra  oXXijXots 
avfi<pmvei'  toI^  Xeyovat  yap  clvai  iroXXa  Kai  didta  Kai  eiort 
Kai  iff-xyv  c^orra  iravra  dWoiovaQai  ri^iv  ooxei,  koI  fxernk- 
XaTTeiv  wTfifiepat  tpalveTcu.  <Pavep6v  Toivvv  on  ouk  6p9w  eeapa- 
fxev'  ov  o€  exetva  to  voSXa  op9as  dojrci  ctvau  ov  yap  cu* 
wo/Ji/XXaTTOi'  et  aXi;d^  ^f'  oXX'  ^v  av  ottoIoi'  eodxet  eKaarov 
ToiovTo'  Tov  yap  tw  ovti  ovtos  ovSev  /ScXnov'  to  oe  iro- 
paXXoTTOF  natTOV  ov  w^rro*  to  oe  ix^  ov  yevijrov  e(rTcv* 
oi/TftfS  €i  ?roXXa  tjy  towto  eoei  elcot  owolov  irep  to  ey. 

Fol.  139  a*  w?  fiey  o  euXo^cTaTo?  twi/  to5  nXaToii'os 
0(Xa)i/  '^apievTOK  etrea-rjfiitjvaTo,  wairep  o  'A^^iXXevs  tov  ^Ek- 
Topos  tiaXiarT    av  etredvfiei  et?  ojuiXi^i'  d^uceo^at. 


C.  C.  MS.      Fol.  273  r.    KaOdwep  'EfiTredoKX^  ^tia\v  eirX  Ttfs 
<pi\oTrfTos  Xe'yotn' 

V  TToXXo!  ftev  Kopaat  dvauvevei  efikdcrrtiaav 

*  «  «  «  « 


Simplicius  de  Coelo. 


62.3 


Cod.  C.  C.  C 
Kfll  axivrfTov,  Kai  /ntjoevi  xec^  iietXtjMevotff  aW  oKov  eauTov 
irXrip^  enayet-  tieyttrrov  ftev  out/  atj/ueiov  owrov  o  Ao-yor' 
0T(  «v  fMvop  etTTi'  arap  fcoi  race  tni/ieia'  el  yap  ^v  woWd 
TOiavTQ,  ypff  avra  elvoi  otov  frtp  tyut  tptj/it  to  ev  c'pfii' 
€1  yap  €<TTt  y^  Kat  v3tt>p  Kai  ct^/j,  xat  (Tiotfpo?'  xal  j^oao^^ 
Kat  irup'  Kat  to  fxiv  (^w>v  Tooe  Tcdvtpcos'  irai  fieXaif'  xm 
Xei'fcoi'  Kai  ra  aXXa  oaa  tpaatf  oi  avOpwiroi  elvai  aXt^rfy  el 
oe  Tavra  coTi*  nat  tj/xel$  opOwi  opw/iev  Km  aKovofiev'  elvat 
yj>ri  eKatTTOv  toiovtoii  ciou  fr^p  to  irpwrov  edo^ep  yitiiv  iiij 
oe  fxeTair'nmiv,  fxrj  oe  ylveaOut  eTtpotov'  dW  act  eluat  ckQ' 
aro**  olou  irep  earV  vvv  ^e  (bufiev  opBw\'  opdv  koi  okouciv 
ital  avvKvat'  ooK€t  o«  tj/xtv  totc  Qepixov  >ifVj(po»  y'ltKtr&ai' 
Kat  TO  ^v)^y  Bepuov'  xat  to  cxXijpov  /laXaKoi/  Kat  to  jua~ 
\aKov  OKXripov'  kuI  to  ^tvov  atrodvriaKtiyi  Kut  cic  fi^  ^wrroc 
y'tvio^at  Kai  TavTa  irarra  eTepotovaOaC  Ka\  oTt  tt¥  Te  Kat 
o  vvv  ovciy  ofxotov  eJvat'  oXX  o  t€  aicrjpo^  (TKXrjpos  etov  tio 
vaKTvXt^  KaTaTpt^eadai  ofiov  p€wv  Kot  ypwrtn  Ka\  XiOo^'  koi 
a\Xo  on  l(j^vp6v  elvat  coxet  Trai/.  tiMTTe  trufx^lvei  fx^re  opdv 
ftiire  T«  ot^a  ytvwTKdV.  ef  vlaToi  tc  yij  irai  X'tBo^  yU 
pftrOai.  ov  To'tvvv  ravTa  aXXf/XtMc  OfioXoyet,  (pafievois  yap 
elwH  TToXXa  cuoia'  Kat  eiorjre  Kai  t<T')^uf  ej^oura  irdvra,  «r€- 
potova^ai  Tjtiiv  coKeif  koI  nerarriTTeiv  ck  tou  fKaaTore 
optofiet'Ov'  oijXov  roifvv  OTi  ovk  op$a>i  ewpuifxev  ot/^e  cKeivn 
woXXa  opOws  ooKsi  clroi*  ow  yap  av  fieTeirtirrev  et  dXtj0^ 
i;y,  aXX*  r/v  otov  Trvp  ^ooKct  eKurrov  TotovTov.  tou  yap 
eovTo^  dXifOtvov  KpfiatTov  ovoev'  tfv  ce  fieTairea-fj  to  fiitrov 
awfoXeTo'  to  ^e  ovk  eov  yeyovev'  otrrwi  ovv  €(  xoXXa  etrj, 
TotavTa  -^p^   eJvatt   otov  wep  to   ev. 

Fol.  2OO  S,        OK-   AiCV  O  iroXwTiVlJTOV  TWV  WXaTitivoi  <f>vXwVf 

j^api€VTun  airetTKOJ'^ev 

avTap  'AviXXeuv 
''EicTopos  ai^a  fidXtaTa  XtXaieTo  ct/rai  umiXov. 

yufxvoi  5e  evXal^ovTo'^  /3/9a^fotwv  ft^M^  wfitof 
OfifiaTa  oe  oJa  ivXavoTo  irei/rjTevovTa  fieTturuni'' 

€v   TavTp  ovv  Tp    KaTcuTTacet    uovt*oti€\ii  vTt   ra   yvia  enro 

rrff  Too   vcIkov^  itaxpi<rewi   orra  ivXavaTo. 

^'  Cod.  Tuir.  ifiirkalpirra ;    bul  l>iinplJciuk  rfmnrka,  to  yap  wXauno^ai   ««  rm 


M  Simplidns  He  Ccelo. 

Ed.  Vkkbt. 
Fol.  1*7  b.      ttW  o  ZoDtfor  eXfyei'. 

Fol.  1 W   a.       Oti  tif    liiiLKfttueTai   to   vvp  ex   t^   aapttof 

lo    nev   0«o<^|>a(rTc»?   hito    tw»'   a(fi9u\^wu    tow   arQfianrov,    Tar 

|d)Xo'ya9  KeywpitrOat  cirjyeirtu'    Mfyc^jo?  o  AXcfoW/Jo*  ia-r^< 

[c/toi  tiieYi/crni TO,  air    ai^^o;  iaj^iaotKov   irvp  e^tXOeiv  utto  tov 

luryiovt  Kai  KaTaxavaat  Ta?  o^|/«tcJ*  ev  u*  xai  eiraixrc  to  iraOos' 

e/it^atmwrt  ce  Arat  oi  Ttvv  avOpaxoyv  diadecrcit  airo  Toif^  irvpot 

ytvaficfot'  KQi    OI    icat/o'ikft'Fs   irvperoi'    airo  t;v\ov   de    vup-  ex- 

j8o\Xot/trt,   foiTfjOov    Tfc>i/  ^wXtui'  OI?    T€p€Tpov   tv  0aT€pip   ire- 

pi.aTp€(povT€i'     oTt    o«    -yf/    ei'i'TTUjoj^ct    TowTotv,      ar7,uatW<    if 

/bicTa  Td>'  tfjLTTpTjCfXov  T€<Ppa'  KaTa<pavtt^  oe  xat  tf  Ke-^wpta-ftev*/ 

uypoTt)^'   Kat  6  e^oTjUti^oMcww  airjp, 

Fol.  157  a.  Kai  or)  irai  nooJcXov  o  €k  Affciuf  09  Tr?  i;v 
oX'tyov  trpo  ifAOv  tov  TWaTttttfo^  d<o^o;^ov,  ^v^\iov  ffvi^ypa\fA€»', 
Txlr  cfTai/tfa  tow  AptoTOTeXow  crffTOffei?  otoXt/ofF,  eoofc  /*oi 
KoXw  e')^Hf  dia  (ipayewv  as  oiov  tc,  tuv  Xwrets  extha^  TOiy 
€vaTaacatv  vapairvfa^at- 


The  aext  of  the  Oxford  MSS.  in  value  is  thai  of  New 
College;  fur  tlie  iospccliuu  of  which  1  feel  indebted  to  the 
Warden  and  Fellows  of  that  Society.  It  is  a  folio  of  368 
leaves,  and  contains  the  whole  work,  with  the  exception  of 
a  small  portion  of  the  Fourth  Book.  It  is  more  elegantly 
written  than  the  Corpus  AIS.,  but  probably  of  the  same  age. 
The  readings  which  it  exhibits  uuich  more  neoily  resemble 
tliose  of  the  Turin  copy,  without  however  being  preciisely 
the  same.  I  have  noted  some  of  these  variations  in  the  reraes 
of  Fmpeducles.  Should  any  sehular  ever  contemplate  aiiutlier 
editiuQ  of  the  commentai'y  of  Siuiplicius,  he  cnuld  not  have 
recourse  to  better  materials  than  those  afforded  by  these 
two  Oxford  MSS^. 

The  Uodleian  Library  has  a  MS.  of  Simplicius  Auctar. 
T.  111.  SO,  in  folio,  of  the  ]6th  century,  but  it  contains  only 
the  6rfit  Book  without  the  preface.     In  the  Saville  CoUectioa« 

"  The  Pmphrucr  must  Iiivc  read  I'/inara  for  a^ptifiarti. 

^*  Tbe  Libraries  of  (;oii)us  and   N«w   CoUegc  uf  bdldes  bOlb  Dch   in  MS8«J 
of  Uic  other  AriMotdian  conuiicntMtors. 


^ 


fM€vavo  o<p$a\fiu}v  ca^pwiroi/  ^Xo*ya  eKKfjiOrjitat  \(TTop€i'  Me- 
yiBio^  06  o  'AXf^ay<Jpev9  MTfMt  efioi  cirjytjtraTo  r^BeauBcu 
layiattKov  di/o^os,  tfvo  avo  tov  ta-j^iow  €^e\Oov,  xal  Kuvcai 
Trt  (TTptofiaTft'  €(h  ui  xat  ewavffaTo  to  irriOoi  ctjXouat  di 
Kat  o't  Tiov  avBpaKttiv  l<Tyap€i  atro  Trvpo^  yevofievat'  kuI  o< 
oioxafi?  irvpeTot'  airo  ce  ^uXou  rrvp  exfidWovfTt'  to  vrepeov 
^iJXoi'  wp  TpuTravov  ev  tm  erepta  TreptcrTpe<povTt^'  on  Se  yrj 
toZtoi9  evttrrtf  ^^Xot  ij  fiCTa  Tijy  Kautriv  vTroXcfTrofievij 
Tetf}pa'  dtjXot  de  xat  i]  eKKpti/afj.€vtj  uypoTtj^y  Ktn  6  ej^arfif 
^o/uet'ov  €itjpm 

Kol.  297  8.  ripoA'XD?  c€  6  CK  AvKia^  oXiyov  wpo  i/iov 
yeyoyt^t  tov  IXXaTtavos  otaooy^ov,  (iifiXioii  eypa^j/e  ray  (tTav0iX 
Tov  'Apt(TTOT€\ovi  eytTTa'ffe*?  StaXvtDPf  naXw^  ^X^***  ^^of^'  MOij 
cvKTo/itds  wt  SvvaTov  Toif  evoTOcTcffi  Toy  Xvtrets  CKelvov  vtto- 
Ta^at. 


Catal.  Bodl.  6rt5S.6i  is  another  MS.  of  the  same  age,  which 
has  the  becuud  Book  with  the  proem.  Since  the  Turin  copy, 
according  to  Mons'  Peyron,  is  not  earlier  than  the  middle 
of  the  I. 5th  century,  it  iippeartt  that  all  the  MSS.  of  Sim- 
plicius  of  wliich  we  have  any  account,  are  comparatively  of 
a  recent  date.  Harlcs  (Fflbr.  Bibl.  ix.  p.  .'i-HI-)  notices  from 
Montfaucon  two  other  MSS.  of  the  Commentary  de  Ctelo, 
one  at  Paris  in  the  Royal  Library,  another  at  Rome  in  the 
Library  of  St.  Mauro. 

1.  A.  C. 


VICO. 


The  name  of  Giambattista  Vico»  the  author  of  the 
Scienza  Niiora,  of  whose  life  and  writings  it  is  proposed 
iti  this  paper  to  give  some  account,  is  so  little  kuown  io 
England,  that  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  readers  of  the 
Philological  Museum  may  now  hear  of  hiin  for  the  first 
time.     Tlie   remoteness  of   tlie  country    in    which   he   wrote, 

'  the  singularity  of  liis  wurks»  and  his  utter  disregard,  not 
only  of  the  graces  of  style,  but  even  the  virtues  of  perspicuity 

I  and  method,  will  explain  the  ignorance  of  his  liistorical 
writings  which  still  prevails  among  us :  we  are  besides  of 
all  literary  nations  the  most  incurious  respecting  the  pro~ 
ductions  of  foreigners.  It  is  much  more  wonderful  that  the 
Scienza  Nuova  was  unknown  in  Germany  nearly  a  century 
after  ita  puhli<^ation.  After  Wolf  had  )>ublished  his  Pro- 
legomena to  Homer,  he  received  from  Cesarotti,  the  venerable 
translator  of  Homer  and  Ossian,  a  copy  of  this  work  of 
Vico,  with  the  remark  that  he  would  find  in  it  an  anticipa- 
tion of  his  OH'n  dreams;   and  he  gave  an  account  of  it,  as  ft: 

[literary  curiosity,  in  his  Museum,  Vol.  i.  p.  555.  seq. 
The   scanty   materials   for   the   life   of  Vico,    which 
markcil    by    few    vicissitudes    or   incidents,    are    found    in 

'  memoir  written  by  himself,  prefixed  to  the  Scienza  Nuova, 
with  some  additions  subsequently  made  by  him  and  his  son, 
which  are  containc*!  in  the  publication  of  his  works  by  the 
Marquis  of  Vilk  Rosa  in  1818.  He  was  bom  at  Naples 
in  lfi88;  the  only  memorable  event  which  he  has  recorded 
of  hia  early  years  is  that  he  fractured  his  scull  by  a  fall  at 
the  age  of  seven,  an  incident  which  the  surgeon  predicted 
would  deprive  him  of  his  understanding,  but  which  as  he 
Bays  confirmed  a  propensity  to  melancholy  in  his  temper. 
Such  a  temper  is  indeed  very  strongly  marked  in  the  striking 
portrait  prefixed  to  the  Milan  edition  of  the  Scienjta  Nuova, 


but  it  was  hereditary,  and  aggravated  by  the  disappointnients 
of  his  life.  His  father  was  a  bookseller  in  humble  circum- 
stances; his  education  was  conducted  by  the  Jesuits,  or  rather 
by  himself  under  their  nominal  su peri n tendance,  for  his  mind 
was  not  formed  to  yield  to  the  guidance  of  others.  His 
studies  were  chiefly  directed  to  metaphysical  philosophy, 
languages  and  jurisprudence,  and  he  must  have  made  extra- 
ordinary proficiency  in  the  last,  since  at  sixteen  he  successfully 
defended  an  action  which  had  been  brought  against  his  father'. 
But  he  could  not  be  tempted  to  plunge  in  the  bustle  of 
the  forum;  his  health  was  infirm,  and  he  accepted  the  offer 
of  the  Bishop  of  Ischia  to  undertake  the  instruction  of  his 
nephews  in  jurisprudence.  In  the  salubrious  seclusion  of  the 
castle  of  Vatolla,  where  he  spent  nine  years,  he  recovered 
his  health  and  pursued  his  studies  without  iutemiption, 
especially  those  of  the  Canon  Law  and  Theology  :  the  first 
conception  of  his  wurk  on  the  principles  of  Natural  Law  was 
the  result,  he  tells  us,  of  Iiis  endeavours  to  attain  the  true 
Catholic  medium  l>etween  the  extremes  of  Calvinism  and 
Pelagianism  on  the  subject  of  Grace^'.  The  assiduous  study 
of  Cicero,  whom  he  used  in  order  to  correct  the  influence 
of  the  barbarous  phraseology  of  the  jurists,  gave  hitn  that 
command  of  style  which  is  display^  in  his  trealiHes  and 
orations  in  the  Latin  language.  His  taste  growing  more 
and  more  severe,  he  a!uindone<l  the  modern  literature  of  his 
country  for  the  great  fathers  of  Italian  poetry  and  prose, 
Petrarca,  Boccaccio,  and  above  all  Dante,  whose  serious  add 
melancholy  eharactcr  seems  to  have  harmonized  best  with 
his  own.  Returning  to  Naples,  with  tastes  and  opinions 
formed  in  ancient  schools,  he  found  himself  a  stranger  among 
his  countrymen.  Instead  of  Plato,  whom  Vico  had  chosen 
for  his  master,  and  whom  the  Italian  scholars  of  the  I5th 
centtiry  had  worshipped,  Des  Cartes  reigned  in  the  schools 
of  philosophy ;  although  poetry  had  abandoned  the  vicious 
model  of  Marini  and  his  school,  it  had  not  returned  to  that 
of  the  great  men  whom  alone  Vico  honoured.  Not  accustomed 
to  conform  to  popular  taste,  he  was  only  the  more  confirmed 
in  his  admiration  of  the  ancients;   to  preserve  the  purity  of 


i 

I 

I 

I 


'  Vitt  di  O.  B.  Vico,  p.  7. 
Vol..  II.  No.fi.  4-1, 


»  Ibid.  i».  10. 


yOB 


Fwo. 


Iiis  Latin   style  lie   meditated   nt    last   to  n^nounce    even    the 
study  of  the  Greck,^  rpfusi'd  to  learn  FriMich,  and  bs  he  had 
observed    that    the    appearance   of    commentators    and    lexico- 
graphers ii»  literature  was  simultaneous  with  tlie  loss  of  purity, 
«he  delermiued  to  read  the  classics  without  tlie  aid  of  either, 
[using  only    the    Nomcnclator  of  Junius   for  technical    terms. 
[These  things  arc  characteristic  of  that  love  of  independence, 
«ud  that  wlfrcliance,   to  which  his  princijml   works  owe  their 
Oeculiorities  both  of  matter  and  of  form.     **  Per  tutte  queste 
cose   il   Vico  benedisse  non  aver  lul   avuto  maestro  iicUc  cui 
.parole  avcssc  egli  giurato  e  Hngra/io  cjueUe  selvc^  fralle  quali, 
[dot  suo  buon  gcniu  guidato,  uveva  fatto  il  maggior  corso  dc 
tsuoi  studj^    sen/a   uiuno   afTetto  di   setts,  6   non  nella    Citt^ 
nella  quale   come   modu  di  vesti  si  cangiava  ogni  du«   o    tre 
anni  gusto  di  lettere*.*" 

In  1^7  Vicn  was  chosen  to  the  Professorship  of  Rhetoric, 
in  pot>t  of  small  enioluniciit,  of  which  he  eked  out  the  scanty 
Ireceipts  by  giving  instruction  in  Latin.  It  gave  hiui,  how. 
tever,  the  opportunity  of  promulgating  from  time  to  time  his 
1  views  on  various  topics  of  literature  and  philosophy.  In  an 
[oration  delivered  in  1708,  at  tlie  commencement  of  the  course 
[of  studies  in  the  University,  he  contrasts  the  ancient  modaJ 
[of  cultivating  all  sciences  in  coinmun,  as  citemplitied  by  Plato^ 
\  with  the  modem  method  of  pursuing  each  branch  aa  if 
[independent  of  nil  the  rest,  and  recommends  that  all  divinei 
,and  human  knowledge  should  form  one  body,  and  he  animated 
|:with  one  spirit.  The  same  principle  was  applied  to  Juri^ 
[prudence  in  his  works,  De  Universi  Juris  uuo  Principio,  and 
De  Constantia  Jurisprudentis,  published  in  17^0,  atui  on 
Lvhich  he  was  then  employed.     After  the  publication  of  the 

works,  und  after  bo  long  and  disinterested  a  fuUilnicnt  of  the 
[duties  of  his  oflico,  Vico  thought  himself  entitled  to  become 
■  a  candidate  for  a  vacant  chair  of  jurisprudence  iu  the 
University  ;  but  notwithstanding  the  applause  which  attended 
[the  lecture  which  he  gave  as  a  specimen  of  his  {lowers,  nut 
being  able  to  stoop  to  the  personal  applications  which  other 
[candidates  U8e<l,  he  found  that  he  should  lie  unsuccessful^ 
[imd  retired  from  the  contest.     That   he  deeply  felt  the  dig- 


»  Viu  di  0.  B.  Vico,  p.  s«. 


•  IbhL 


Vko. 


appointment  \n  evident,  fur  from  this  time,  he  says,  he 
concluded  that  his  country  would  not  allovr  him  to  serve 
her,  but  his  only  revenge  was  to  apply  lunisclf  to  the  cum- 
pletiun  of  the  work  which  he  meditated,  lie  would  nut 
foTj^t  that  she  was  his  parent,  tliough  she  was  a  stern  one 
whenever  caressed  her  child*.  In  the  year  1725  accordingly 
he  published  the  f^cienza  Nuovr,  in  which  the  principles 
which  he  had  exhibited  indistinctly  and  without  order  in  his 
former  works  were  at  length  presented  in  a  systematic  form. 
The  remainder  of  Ids  days  was  past  in  poverty  and  domestic 
sorrow ;  one  of  his  children  to  whom  he  was  tenderly  attached, 
and  to  whose  education  he  had  devoted  much  of  liis  time, 
languJBhed  in  a  tedious  and  severe  disorder;  and  anottier, 
by  the  irregidarities  of  his  conduct,  compelled  him  to  demand 
his  confinement.  But  Vico's  was  a  spirit,  which  calamity 
could  not  long  or  wholly  overcloud ;  in  his  deep  religious 
feeling  and  his  conWction  that  he  had  established  by  hig 
writings  the  proof  of  a  wise  and  benevolent  Providence 
controuling  the  course  of  human  artiiirs,  he  had  a  source  of 
consolation  which  never  failed  him,  while  his  intellect  remained. 
**  Providence,^  says  he  Jn  a  letter  written  soon  after  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Scienza  Nuova,  '*  even  when  it  neems  to  our 
feeble  view  only  a  severe  justice,  is  really  kindness  and  love. 
Since  I  have  completed  my  great  work,  I  seem  to  have  put 
on  a  new  man.  I  am  no  longer  templed  to  declaim  against 
the  bad  taste  of  the  age,  since  by  refusing  mc  the  olHcc 
which  I  sought,  it  has  led  me  to  compose  the  S^enza  A'nova. 
The  composition  of  this  work,  if  1  am  not  <leceived,  has 
tilled  me  with  an  heroic  spirit,  which  places  me  above  the 
fear  of  death  and  the  calumny  of  my  rivals.  I  feet  myself 
on  a  rock  of  adamant,  when  I  think  on  the  judgement  of 
God,  who  docs  justice  to  genius  by  the  esteem  of  the  wise*'.'" 
Ou  the  accession  of  the  house  of  Doiirbon  to  the  throne  of 
Naples  in  1735,  his  condition  was  in  some  respects  improved ; 
be  was  named  historiogrnplier  to  the  king,  and  his  son 
Gennaro  succeeded  him  in  his  professorship;  but  these  marks 
of  favour  came  too  lutu  to  give  much  jileasure  to  Vico,  whose 
powers  were  already  exhausted,  and  after  remaining  fourteen 

'  Vita  (U  a.  B.  VHco,  p.  fiA,  with  a  wanet  of  Vico's  quoted  b;  Jtltchclci,  p.  64 
•  MicMet,  I>i«nmn  biw  le  Sjnienie  ct  Ic  Vir  Ae  Vlco,  p.  47- 


680 


F9f«. 


months  in  a  state  of  insenaibility  in  which  he  did  not  kt 
even  his  own  childrcu,  he  expired  ou  the  SOtU  of  JaXkUMtj^ 

Vico  had  published  a  second  edition  of  tlie  Scienza  Nuova 
in  17S0,  but  by  the  more  synthetic  form  which  ho  gave  to  it, 
he  rendered  it  more  obscure  in  this  edition  than  in  its  origioal 
state.  The  third  edition  was  published  a  short  lime  Iwrfore 
bis  death,  and  wtule  he  was  in  the  deplorable  condition  which 
we  have  alreadv  deserilied.  The  additions  which  were  nude 
prubublv  by  Gennaro  Vico  from  !»is  father's  MSS.  without 
venturing  to  alter  any  thing,  only  aggravated  the  obscurity 
by  interrupting  the  connexion.  It  is  from  this  edition,  as 
having  received  the  autlior^s  latest  additions  that  the  sub- 
sequent reprints  Iiave  been  made.  With  the  life  of  Vico 
the  interest  of  the  Italians  in  his  system  appears  to  have 
ceased,  and  no  other  edition  of  the  Scionza  Nuova  waa  pul>> 
lishcd  during  the  I8th  century.  Since  1801  it  haj»  been 
several  times  reprinted ;  it  was  transUted  into  German  by 
Weber  in  1822,  and  a  Re.dartktn  of  it  under  the  title  of 
Principes  de  la  Philusopbie  de  V  Histoirc,  traduits  cie  I«i 
Scien/'a  Nuova  de  J.  B.  Vico,  was  publitihed  at  Paris,  1897» 
by  M.  Michelet,  Professor  of  History  in  the  College  of 
St  Barbe.  It  is  not  a  translation  of  either  of  the  ItaliaD 
editions,  the  editor  taking  from  each  what  was  necesssry  for 
his  purpose  of  giving  a  clear  and  intelligible  view  of  the 
system,  retrenching  the  tautologies  and  restoring  the  dis- 
located parts  to  their  places.  Whoever  is  not  in  love  with 
difficulty  for  its  own  sake,  will  do  well  to  seek  his  know- 
ledge of  Vice's  system  in  M.  Michelet^s  work;  for  Vico 
himself  is  the  Heraclitus  of  modern  philosophers.  Uia 
Opuscoli  were  published  in  four  volumes  at  Naples  in  1818 
by  the  Marquis  de  Villa  Rosa.  From  the  additions  made 
to  Vico^s  autobiography,  by  hia  son,  in  tlie  first  volume  of 
this  collection,  i>ou)e  particulars  mentioned  above  have  been 
derived,  through  tlie  medium  of  Michelet's  book- 

The  object  of  the  Scienza  Nuova  is  to  show,  that  tho 
history  of  the  human  race  is  determined  by  laws  as  oet^ 
tain  in  their  operation,  as  those  by  which  the  ma 
world  is  governed.  The  harmony  and  simplicity  of  these 
laws    had    been    demonstrated    by    naturfil    philosophy,    aud 


Vico, 


631 


Vico  thought  that  there  must  be  in  hunifln  nature,  and 
the  order  of  Providence,  principles  not  only  equally  certain 
in  their  operation,  but  equally  capable  of  demonstrative 
proof. 

Aft,  according  to  Plato,  there  wa.s  in  the  Divine  Mind 
an  Idea,  antecedent  to  the  existence  of  a  material  world,  and 
beinp  ila  archetype,  so  there  must  exist  on  etenml  Idea  of 
the  history  of  mankind  in  the  Divine  Intellect,  which  is 
made  sensible  in  actual  events,  and  never  exceeded  or  de- 
parted from  in  all  the  variety  of  human  affairs.  The  first 
glance  at  history  seems  to  contradict  the  supposition,  that 
any  such  regularity  exists,  but  more  clo&ely  examined  it  will 
be  found,  that  there  is  order  in  the  seeming  confusion,  and 
a  great  cycle  of  changes  always  returning  into  itself.  The 
discovery  of  this  order  is  the  New  Science ,-  new^  because 
no  one  had  vet  demonstrated  its  existence;  a  science,  l»ecause^ 
its  subject  is  intellectual,  universal  and  eternal.  Vico  desired 
.Co  obtain  as  firm  a  basis  for  his  favourite  studies  of  juris- 
prudence and  history,  as  the  philosophy  of  external  nature 
had  alreatly  received,  and  the  principles  of  his  new  science 
are  promulgated  in  the  form  of  axioms,  which  occupy  the 
greater  part  of  his  first  book- 
No  philosophy  of  human  nature  can  be  sound  op  useful, 
which  either  attempts  to  eradicate  the  passions,  or  abandons 
man  to  their  corrupt  influence.  The  Stoics  committed  the 
first  error,  the  Epicureans  the  second;  neither  system,  there- 
fore, can  be  the  foundation  of  the  New  Science ;  neither 
of  them  recognizes  Providence,  the  Stoics  sub8lit\iting  Fate 
for  it,  and  the  Epicureans,  Chance.  The  Platonic  philosophy 
ou  the  other  hand  agrees  with  all  lawgivers,  in  recognizing 
three  truths,  that  there  is  a  Providence,  that  human  virtue 
consists  in  the  moderation  of  the  passions,  and  that  the  soul 
i»  immortal.  The  passions  which  tend  to  the  destruction  of 
Society,  moderated  by  the  influences  to  which  Providence 
subjects  man,  are  the  virtues  which  hold  society  together 
and  promote  the  welfare  of  ita  nicmhcra.  In  laying  down 
these  axioms,  Vico  has  evidently  had  in  view  the  system  of 
Hubbes,  whicli  had  alarmed  the  friends  of  morality  and 
freedom  throughout  Europe.  He  had  represented  society  «» 
kept  together  only  by  the  ptjwec  of  the  magistrate,  repressing 


Vutt. 


.that  fiolfishncss  whici)  would  lead  every  iiulividual,  if  he 
rtlic   jrawer,    to   snatch    what   another  possessed :    Vico   make 
[this  very  selG^hnehs,  under  the  rostriiint  uf  religion,,  the  source 
Et>f  civilization  tind  humanity  ^ 

ThuH  the  eleiiients  of  Law  exist  among  all  nations,  and 
it  is  an  error  to  r^ard  it  as  taught  by  one  to  another,  by 
9t    to   Greece,    by    Athens    to   Home;    it   origiitatctl    in- 
endently    in   each,    and    it   was    only    by    wars,   cnibas^iea 
and  commercial  intercourse,  that  such  a  communication   took 
place,  as  to  form  at  length  a  Law  of  iNations.      The  notionsj 
jivhich   thus   expand   and    imite    to   become  a  general    system. 
[of  law  arc  derived  from  the  Common  eense  of  mankind^  an 
[irreflectivc  judgment    of  necessity   or   utility,    common    to    %j 
'people,    a    nation,    or    to   the    whole    human    race.      Man    ia 
essentially  a  social  creature,  for  nothing  con  long  remain   in 
.a  state  which  is  not  natural. 

The  accounts  which  nations  give  of  their  owd  early  state 
jniust  not  be  implicitly  believed;     all   have    been    misled    by 
Vvanity  to  attribute  to  their  own  ancestors  the  commencements 
fof  civilization,  and  to  suppose  that   they  could  carry   up  their 
annals  to  the  origin  of  the  world.      The  vanity  of  the  leurned 
too  has  led  them   to  suppose,  that   what  tliey  knew  hud  been 
known  also  in   remote  ages,  to   attribute  a  surprising  know- 
ledge of  philosophy  to  Zoroaster,  Hermes  Trismegiatus,   Or- 
pheus, Pythagoras;  to  find  a  mystical  meaning  in  the  Egyptian 
f hieroglyphics,   and    philosophical    allegories  in   the   poems    of 
Homer.     It  is  a  principle  of  human  nature,  to  magnify  what 
ifl  remote,  and  make  itself  the  model  of  everything   that   is 
unknown.      Popular  traditions,  when   preserved  by  whole  na- 
tions and  for  a  great   length  of  lime,  must  have  some  motive 
of  truth,  but  this,  by  lapse  of  time  and  change  of  language, 
bec*omcs   so  buried   under  falsehood,   that    a  chief    labour  of 
the  new  science  is  to  extricate  it.      Languages  are  the  most 
certain    witnesses    of  the   ancient  customs  of  a    people,    and 
each    of  the  great   changes  which    they  have   undergone   has 

^  Se.  N.  Vol.  I.  'J03.  L^uomo  nello  suto  botialc  ama  MJamente  la  »ua  Mmtnemam  t 
preM  mogllG  c  faiti  fij^liuoli  ants  In  sua  aalvcaoa  am  la  aalreaaa  dflla  FamigUa  : 
venuto  a  vita  civile  ams  la  sua  salveua  ran  fa  tairttxza  detta  CUta  ;  iliitcM  j^l'  impt^ 
sopra  piu  popoli  anm  la  ma  lalrcna  con  la  ttUvexxa  Mir  Xaxioni ;  anitf  1«  muloa 
in  gucrri.',  |>Aci,  allinnu-,  cMiiincnij,  ama  la  ana  M)vc»a  con  la  soIvcmmo  <l%  fulto  l{ 


F&o. 


633 


been    accnni|)aiMccl    by   a    pecubar    luoJification    of   their    lan- 
guage. 

These  are  the  most  impurUint  of  Vice's  philosophical  and 
philological  axioms.  The  history  of  one  of  the  great  cycles 
of  human  affairfl  is  thus  traced  by  him.  After  the  IJelugc 
the  condition  of  nmnkind,  with  the  exception  of  the  people 
of  God,  was  that  in  which  Homer  describes  the  Cyclops  of 
Sicily;  their  stature  was  gigantic,  like  that  of  the  Patago- 
nians,  they  abused  their  Iwdilv  strength  in  governing  tyrau- 
nically  their  families  and  household^  but  had  no  laws  or 
social  union.  They  lived  at  first  without  religion,  but  the 
terriiic  di.tplay  of  divine  |wwer  awakened  in  their  minds  the 
idea  of  a  .supernatural  Being.  This  triumph  of  religion, 
over  minds  in  which  hitherto  brutal  passion  had  reigned,  is 
the  destruction  of  the  giants  by  the  thunder  of  Jupiter,  almost 
every  nation  having  its  giants  and  its  Jupiter.  As  men  can  • 
conceive  of  tlie  unknown,  only  by  assimilating  it  to  the  known, 
when  once  the  idea  of  a  God  was  suggested  to  the  mind,  all 
natural  phoenoniena  were  explained  by  the  presence  and  agency 
of  the  gods.  This  is  the  divine  age,  when  the  god*  (of  wham 
Varro  reckoned  thirty  thousand  among  the  Latins)  lived  upon 
the  earth.  As  the  deaf  and  dumb  supply  their  want  of  speech 
by  signs,  St)  the  rude  men  of  this  age,  not  having  yet  act{uired 
an  articulate  language,  helped  themselves  out  by  signs,  which 
gave  rise  to  hieroglyphics.  These  have  been  falsely  supposed 
to  be  a  contrivance  of  the  priests,  to  conceal  their  knowledge 
from  the  vulgar;  they  were  really  the  result  of  the  imper- 
fection of  speech.  Language  was  poetical ;  for  imagination 
was  excited  before  reason  was  cultivated;  and  musical;  for 
those  who  stammer  assist   themselves  by  singing. 

To  the  divine  succeeded  the  heroic  age;  as  Polyphemus 
i«  the  model  of  the  men  of  the  first,  so  is  Achilles,  fierce  and 
passionate,  but  magnanimous  and  affectionate,  of  those  of  the 
second.  The  characteristic  of  the  heroes  is  energy,  exerted 
for  the  protection  of  tlie  feeble  and  the  overthrow  of  the 
oppressor.  Such  was  preeminently  Hercules,  whom  itc  find 
in  so  many  countries,  because  their  condition  was  similar ; 
many  noble  and  royal  races  of  Greece  deduced  themselves 
from  him.  The  connncnccment  of  the  communities  of  men 
was  that  those  who  suffered  from  the   oppression  of  the  fero- 


634 


Vico. 


cious  ficd  to  the  asylum  which  the  heroes  offered  them*. 
They  did  not  however  thus  obtain  equality  of  rights;  they 
purchased  protection  by  becoming  slaves.  Thus  society  began 
in  a  rigid  aristocracy.  The  early  ages  of  Rome  answer  to 
the  heroic  age  of  Greece,  and  are  characterized  by  aristocratic 
ascendancy.  There  must  have  existed  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tiber  a  Greek  colony  of  which  history  has  not  preserved 
the  name  or  memory,  which  the  Romans  destroyed,  receiving 
the  vanquished  into  the  city,  where  they  formed  the  plebs. 
As  the  aristocracy  would  not  yield  to  one  another,  they  con- 
stituted themselves  into  a  senate,  in  which  all  were  equal; 
they  possessed  exclusively  the  sacerdotal  and  military  power; 
they  were  the  only  Quirites  or  citizens,  of  them  the  comiiia 
cttriata  were  composed.  But  as  they  would  liave  been  left 
without  subjects  to  command,  if  they  had  not  relaxed  some- 
thing of  their  rigour,  they  were  compelled  to  concede  to  the 
revolted  plebeians  at  first  only  the  bonitary  dominion  of  thdr 
lands,  i.  e.  the  power  of  using  them  liable  to  perpetual  revo- 
cation. The  roynl  dominion  wns  at  first  verj*  feeble ;  Tacitus 
says,  **  Urlieni  Romani  a  prinripio  reges  habtiere,""  using  the 
least  expressive  of  the  three  words  by  which  the  jurists  denote 
possession,  habere^  fenere^  possidere^. 

The  characters  of  the  heroic  age  are  not  real  personages* 
but  representatives  of  general  ideas,  one  name  having  drawn 
to  itself  the  attributes  of  a  m\dtitudc  of  the  same  class.  A 
child  sees  an  object  and  gives  it  a  name;  when  he  sees 
another  of  the  same  kind  he  bestows  the  same  name  upon 
it ;  men  in  early  ages  did  the  same,  and  we  must  consider 
a  single  name  as  representing  many  individuals,  and  even 
several  generations.  The  Egyptians,  says  Jamblichus,  attri- 
buted everything  to  Hermes  Trisniegistns;  so  did  the  Greeks 
to  Orpheus,  the  l*ersians  to  Zoroaster.  Romulus  and  The- 
seus are  types  of   heroic  sovereigns  and  legislators;     Homer 

,  himself  is  not   a   single   poet,  but    the  representative   of   the 

^poets  of  the  heroic  times. 

Law  iu  the  divine  age  had  been  tlieocratic,  every  thing 
being  supposed  to  depend  on  the  will  of  the  Gods,  who  con- 

•  **  Vctui  urbn  caadeaiiuiu  coutiliuai,"  uya  Liry,  i.  ft.  of  the  uyliim 
by  Romului.    This  it  one  of  Vieo's  tucffhi  d'  ortty  uul  ihe  foundktioa  of  hu  qrttemj 

•  8e.  N.  Vol.  HI.  ^  19^ 


Vieo. 


635 


demned  or  absolved,  and  declared  their  pleasure  by  oracles. 
In  the  heroic  age  force  was  law,  but  force  tempered  by  reli- 
gion. The  early  jurisprudence  of  the  Humuiis  was  charac- 
terised by  tliQ  rigid  observance  of  the  legal  formula?,  agreeably 
to  the  rigid  and  inflexible  temper  of  its  nristocracy;  the  actus 
ie^ifimiy  or  symbolical  legal  acts,  were  a  renmant  of  the  hiero- 
glyphic language  of  the  preceding  age. 

The  third  age  is  the  human^  or  the  age  of  certain  history, 
in  Greece  marked  by  the  aera  of  the  Olympiads,  nearly  coin- 
cident with  that  of  the  fouudatiou  of  Home.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  Vico  by  no  means  regards  history  as  becoming 
certain  from  the  time  of  these  two  events;  in  Greece  it  hardly 
deserves  this  character  till  the  generation  preceding  the  Pelo- 
ponncsian  war;  it  is  not  till  the  second  Punic  war,  that  Livy 
declares  himself  able  to  write  with  confidence  tl»e  history  of 
Rome.  This  uncertainty  of  the  ancients  themselves  justifies, 
according  to  Vico,  the  boldness  with  which  he  has  rejected 
the  history  of  preceding  ages,  on  the  ground  of  its  intrinsic 
absurtiity.  In  the  human  age  hieroglyphical  and  symbolical 
characters  had  been  exchanged  for  alphabetical,  poetry  for 
prose,  the  figurative  language  of  men  of  passion  and  imagina- 
tion, for  one  which  was  tlie  prmluction  uf  the  understanding. 
The  law  of  this  age  is  characterized  by  a  regard  to  reason 
and  natural  equity;  it  becomes  mure  humane,  as  the  popular 
iofiuence  in  its  decisions  becomes  greater'".  This  effect  is  visible 
in  the  history  of  the  Uonian  government,  which  from  a  strict 
and  exclusive  aristocracy,  became  more  popular,  by  the  in- 
creasing power  of  the  plebs.  It  is  an  error  to  suppose  that 
this  popular  liberty  was  founded  by  Junius  Drutus ;  that 
was  merely  an  aristocratic  liberty ;  the  census,  as  originollj 
instituted  by  Ser%-ius  TuIUus,  was  aristocratic,  it  was  a  lax 
paid   by    the   plebeians   for   the  lands  which    they  held,   but 


'^  In  coonexiOD  with  (hi*  subject  Vtco  oikkea  m  retnaik  equally  ociBinkl  and 
profound.  III.  48.  >*that  by  tncaiia  of  Uncage  frte  natloiu  are  mucen  of  tbeir 
laws,  and  comprl  the  powerful  to  adupt  their  saue  of  theoi-'*  The  Ideas  annexe^ 
to  wordi  are  necessarily  deiermined  hy  the  majority  of  thane  who  UM  thtm,  and 
vilb  new  iiietu  new  lentimenti  liml  their  wky  into  the  minds  of  the  smaller  nun* 
b«r,  without  the  violence  of  controversy.  Lanifuag*  thus  becomes  a  powerful  but 
quiet  tnHininmit  fiir  [iroducuif;  harmony  of  feeling,  among  the  diAVrcnt  nrdcn>  in 
a  state,  snd  preparing  tho«e  changes  of  opinion,  of  which  changn  in  bw  anrl 
gDTcnimcnt  arc  liie  eflect  and  indicatinn. 

Vol.  II.   No.  (>.  *  M 


636 


Firtj. 


about  forty  years  after  the  expulsion  we  find  the  Cens 
again  mentioned,  and  treated  with  disdain  by  tli«  nobilit^j 
because  now  it  was  a  popular  institution,  the  money  beang 
paid  into  the  treasury,  and  not  to  the  nobles.  Fabius  at 
length  fuuoded  upon  the  Census  the  distribution  of  the  Kouulqs 
into  senators,  knights  and  plebeians,  subfitituting  the  democratic 
standard  of  wealth,  for  the  aristocratic  one  of  birth.  Gradually 
the  plebeians  obtained  complete  equality  witli  the  pairician»f 
and  popular  liberty  began  to  degenerate  into  tyranny.  The 
people,  being  ec|uul,  wished  to  be  musters;  the  poor  desired 
to  enrich  themselves  at  the  expence  of  their  superiors  ;  unjusl 
bws  were  proposed  and  force  resorted  to  in  order  to  carry 
or  to  resist  them ;  and  hence  it  liecame  nectrssary  tliat  the 
people  should  obtain  repose,  by  placing  themselves  uuder  the* 
power  of  a  single  sovereign.  Monarchy  is  thus  the  natural 
result  of  the  excesses  of  democracy.  The  remains  of  aris- 
tocratic power  arc  thus  destroyed,  the  condition  of  the  lower 
orders  improved,  the  burthens  of  the  slaves  lightened  by  the 
absolute  power  of  the  emperors.  The  right  of  citizenship* 
wlijch  in  earlier  times  hud  been  restricted  with  so  much 
jealousy,  was  profusely  bestowed.  Aristocracies  are  by  thetr 
nature  limited  ;  democracies  are  adapted  fur  making  cxiaquesta, 
monarchies  for  consolidating  them.  The  Roman  emperors, 
however,  became  depraved,  and  a  second  age  of  barbarism 
was  brought  about  Ijy  the  invasion  of  the  northern  hordes; 
one  great  cycle  of  history  was  accomplished,  and  another 
began,  in  which  the  same  succession  uiay  be  traced  with 
marvellous  correspondence. 

The  Christian  religion  having  triumphed  over  Pagamsm, 
and  orthodoxy  over  Arianism,  the  divine  age  returned;  kings 
assumed  a  sacred  character  and  the  title  of  sacred  majesty, 
clothed  themselves  with  the  garments  of  ecclesiastics,  founded 
orders  of  a  mixed  military  and  religious  character,  and  placed 
the  cross  upon  their  banners.  Judgements  of  God  were  suU- 
stituted  for  trials  by  form  of  law  ;  duels,  though  forbidden 
by  the  Canon  Law,  were  one  species  of  these  judgements. 
Religion  appeared  to  bo  the  only  means,  by  which  the  tempers 
of  men,  grown  savage  by  war,  could  be  mollified ;  and  those 
who  dreaded  violence  took  refuge  under  the  protection  of 
bishops  and  abbots,  and  pkced  themselves,  their  families,  and 


Vieo. 


637 


their  goods,  under  the  safeguard  of  the  church.  Cities  and 
towD8  hence  arose,  ns  in  ancient  times  from  the  osy^ims, 
which  Livy  calls  "  vetus  urbes  condentium  connlhtm.*"  Am 
there  was  no  language  which  the  conquerors  and  the  con- 
<iuercd  could  employ  in  common,  and  the  use  of  the  vulgar 
characters  wah  scarcely  known,  men  returned  to  hieroglyphics 
in  emhiems,  armorial  bearings,  Stc.  To  this  dimne  or  theo- 
cratir  age,  succeeded  the  Atjrow',  that  is,  the  feudal  age.  The 
voitaaUi  rmtici  (tenants  in  viUenage  ?)  whose  service  was  at 
first  personal,  answer  to  the  clients  at  Rome  from  the  time 
of  Romuluti  to  that  of  Servius  Tullius.  To  these  succeeded 
vaasals  holding  real  fiefs  by  payments  (reali  pes!)  answering 
to  the  condition  of  the  plebeians  after  Servius  had  granted 
thoni  the  dominium  honitarium  of  their  lands,  on  }>aying  the 
census  to  the  treasury.  These  plebeians,  called  neari  till  the 
[>assing  of  the  Petilian  law,  answered  to  the  liegemen  (homines 
ligati)  of  the  feudal  age.  Allodial  tenure  corresponds  to  the 
holding  e,T  jure  optima  in  the  Roman  law.  Conquered  kings 
in  the  Roman  times  were  nearly  in  the  condition  of  those 
who  held  sovereign  fiefs  in  the  middle  ages.  In  the  assem- 
blies of  armed  knights  and  barons,  we  see  the  Quirites  of 
ancient  Rome,  who  alone  enjoyed  legislative  rights,  and  de- 
rived their  name  from  their  weapon  {quirts  a  spear).  As  the 
patricians  in  Rome  kept  the  knowledge  of  law  to  themselves^ 
and  lost  their  power  when  this  knowledge  became  diffused 
among  the  people,  ao  the  rei^vnl  of  the  study  of  law  in 
modern  Europe  was  the  downfall  of  the  feudal  aristocracy. 
As  the  Roman  government  was  firiit  aristocratic,  then  popular, 
then  monarchical,  so  have  been  the  governments  of  Europe. 
The  latter  two  forms  are  both  adapted  to  a  civilized  people, 
and  may  be  exchanged  one  for  the  other,  but  there  can  be  no 
return  to  aristocracy.  When  the  plebeians  have  ouce  asserted 
their  own  etjuality  with  the  noble?),  they  will  not  resign  it, 
but  they  may  enjoy  this  equality  in  a  popular  government 
CUT  in  a  monarchy.  Hence  aristocratic  governments  have  al- 
most disappeared,  and  those  which  sur\'ive,  as  Venice,  Lucca, 
(jrenoa,  Nureml>crg,  have  an  anxious  and  precarious  existence. 
Such,  according  to  the  Scien/a  Nuova,  is  the  eternal  circle 
in  which  history  revolves,  under  the  guidance  of  Providence, 
which    thu»  securer    the   government    of    i>tatc&    to    the    Ac«/, 


638 


Vieo. 


i.e.  to  thosu  who  in  each  of  their  successive  conditions  ar 
best  qualified  to  preserve  it*'.  It  is  not  my  intention  to 
enter  into  an  examination  of  its  principles,  or  its  historical 
proofs.  VicD  indeed  gave  himself  little  concern  aliotit  his- 
torical proofs;  he  rarely  quotes  an  authority,  and  never  spe- 
cifically, but  certain  hwffhi  d"  oroy  as  he  calls  them,  passages 
in  the  ancient  authors  which  he  regards  as  favourable  to  bia 
Bystemt  and  which  he  derives  indifferently  from  Homer  or 
lambliehus,  are  reiterated  to  satiety.  To  do  any  justice  to 
the  profound  and  original  thoughts  which  are  scattered  through 
his  work,  it  is  necessary  to  strip  them  of  the  paradoxical 
garb  which  he  has  given  them,  and  place  them  on  a  more 
solid  foundation;  truth  itself  often  looks  like  falsehofxl,  from 
the  strange  company  in  which  it  is  found.  The  general  idea, 
that  government  has  its  origin  in  force,  and  is  gradually  tcnt- 
pered  by  relijjion,  sympathy,  and  the  perception  of  utility, 
when  detached  from  its  connexion  with  the  fanciful  llieory 
of  au  age  of  Polyphemi,  is  much  more  probable  than  the 
doctrine  of  original  compacts  and  voluntary  conventions.  Tlie 
resemblance  between  the  institutions  of  Europe  in  the  middle 
ages,  and  those  of  tlie  ancient  world,  especially  of  Home,  is  a 
fact  which  in  Vico''s  time  had  been  scarcely  noticed ;  Niebuhr 
has  since  drawn  from  it  many  striking  illustrations  of  the 
Homan  history  ;  but  this  resemblance  is  greatly  exaggerated, 
when  modern  history  is  made  to  be  nothing  but  a  renewal 
of  th«  same  circle  of  changes  aa  mankind  hod  already  gone 
through.  Yet  the  conception  of  ^^\lch  a  law  was  original 
and  grand,  however  faulty  its  demonstration  may  \k;  had 
there  been,  as  Seneca  represents,  and  historians  have  Tery 
generally  admitted,  *' perpetua  in  omnibus  rebus  lex,  ut  ad 
8ummum  perductn,  riirsus  ad  infimum  velucius  quam  asccn- 
derant  relabantur,"  it  would  be  a  consolation  to  know,  that 
this  law  was  not  enacted,  as  the  Stoic  declared,  by  the 
nialignity  of  Fate,  but  as  Vico  teaches,  by  the  wisdom  of 
Providence*'.  The  existence  of  such  a  law  of  decline  and 
corruption  may  indeed  be  justly  called  in  question;   there  is 


'»  Sc.  N.    itt.   143. 

'■  Quc»to  die   ftct  lutto  do  fur  jtvt   Mentf ;    perdu-   'I  fcccro  git  nominl  oon 
^intellipfuxa :  non  fu   Fato  i    perchL*  'I    feccro  ron  rlexiiptr:    Dori   Can;   pciche  con 
pcrpetuiti  sonpre  c«i  ftcendo  nrono  nolle  mcdcsimc  ccae.    Sc  N  iii.  p.  IftS. 


VUo. 


6d9 


IK)  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  anv  inherent  principle  of 
decay  in  states,  against  which  wifedom  and  virtue  would  contend 
in  vain. 

Without  entering  further  into  the  merits  of  the  Scienza 
Nuovaf  as  a  Philosophy  of  Hititory,  I  shall  point  out  some 
of  those  remarkable  anticipations  of  subse<juent  discoveries 
which  are  to  be  found  in  it.  The  first  of  these  h  the 
opinion  that  the  hieroglyphic  characters  were  not  an  inven- 
tion of  the  priests  or  philosophers  of  Egypt,  to  emiceul  a 
RLiblime  doctrine  from  the  knowledge  of  the  vulgar,  or  keep 
them  in  subjection  by  iimiiitaining  a  mono^wly  of  science. 
Warburton  in  his  Divine  Legation,  B.  iv.  Sect.  4,  speaks  of 
this  as  being  in  his  lime  an  universal  mistake,  and  his  ex- 
posure of  it,  by  deducing  hieroglyphics  from  picture  writing, 
and  showing  the  analogy  between  these  modes  of  writing  and 
the  figurative  and  dramatic  speech  of  early  times,  is  one  of 
the  most  vabiable  parts  of  that  now  nearly  forgotten  work. 
It  is  curious,  that  both  Vico  and  Warburton  quote  the  story 
of  Idanthyrsus,  the  king  of  Scythin,  wlio  sent  to  Darius  a 
mouse,  a  frog,  a  bird,  and  6ve  arrows,  to  intimate  a  thrcst 
of  destruction,  as  an  example  of  a  kind  of  nialeriid  hiero- 
glyphic, and  a  proof  that  the  principle  was  widely  diffused. 
According  to  Vico  the  symliolical  character  of  the  Eg^'ptiaas 
succeeded  to  the  hieroglyphic,  and  answered  to  the  aTj/Aora 
which  Homer  mentions  in  the  story  of  Bellerophun,  and  the 
epistolographic  wus  an  alphabet.  He  bad  observed  the  simi- 
larity of  the  epistolographic  character  of  the  Egyptians  with 
the  alphabet  of  the  Thcenicians,  but  supposed  the  latter  nation 
to  have  been  the  inventors. 

A  still  more  remarkable  coincidence  is  that  which  appears 
between  the  opinions  of  Vico  on  Homer,  and  those  which 
have  made  the  name  of  F.  A.  Wolf  t»o  celcbraletl.  The  third 
book  of  the  Scienza  Nuova  is  entitled  **  Discovery  of  the 
real  Homer."  After  showing  with  how  little  reason  tlie  cha- 
racter of  a  philosopher  had  been  attributed  to  him,  he  proceeds 
to  inquire,  whether  the  author  of  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
were  the  same,  and  decides  the  question  in  the  negative,  on 
tlie  ground  that  a  poet  whose  native  country  wa«  Asia  Minor, 
where  the  author  of  the  Iliad  was  evidently  l»om,  could  not 
liavc  spoken   of  Kuba^a,   an  the  author  of  the  Odys&ey  doe^, 


040 


Yico, 


as    the   ultima  Thule   of  the   Grecian    wodd.     He    ther«f<M« 
probably   lived  on    the  western  side  of  Greece.     The  traces 
of  refinement  and  luxury  are  chiefly  found  id  the  Odyasey. 
Even  in   the  Hind  they  are   such  as  to  be  incoDsiatcnt   with 
the  supposition    that  the  author  lived   near   the   time    of  the 
Trojan    war,    and   when    the   warrior    Ktill    retained    so    much 
!  ferocity  as  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad  manifest.      The   inference 
is,  that  these  poems  have  past  through  and  been  worked    tip 
'  by   several   hands''   in   several  ages.     As   the   means  of   dis- 
covering   who   the    real    Homer   was,    he  _,  observes,    that    the 
earliest   history  of  all   nations,  of  the  Greeks  aad   Romans 
no   less   than    the    barhiirians,    wmt  consigned    to   verse,    thali 
Homer,  as  Josephus  assures  uk^  left  no  written  work  behind^ 
lllim,  and  never  mentions  alphabetical  writing  in   his  poems« 
that  his  verses  were  sung  in  detached  portions  bv  tlie  ix)%//a>^m^i 
:  to  whose  x\a.me''Oti.vipo^  {oixou  tifictv)   answers;  and  that    the' 
Pisistratidne    at    Athens   divided    and   arranged   the    Homeric 
[poems,  which  shews  that  they  had  been  previously  a  confused i 
finasa.      Aristarchus   corrected   the  text  of  Homer,   yet    tlierdi 
[still  remain  varieties  of  dialect  and  speech  which  must  bavej 
[been    the  peculiarities  of  different  nations  of  Greece,  to  say  I 
[nothing  of    the   licences   of    metre.     The   extreme   disparity  J 
ifaetween  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,   Lnnginus  endeavours  to  ex-| 
plain  by  the  supposition  that  the  poet  wrote  one  in  his  youth] 
and  the  other  in   his  old  age,  but  this  must  be  a  gratuitous] 
hypothesis  in  regard   to  an  author,    whose  country   and    Ufe  I 
are  wholly  unknown  to  us.     Not  absolutely  denying  therefore 
the  real  existence  of  Homer,  Vico  considers  him  '*a«  an  idea 
or  an  heroic  character  of  the  Greek  nation,  in  as  far  as  they 
related  their  bietory   in  poetry;"  meaning,  we  presume,  that 
to  one  person,  who  really  Uvctl  (he  elsewhere  says  about  the 
time  of  Noma),  the  whole  conception  of  the  heroic  poets  of 
Greece  has  been  transfenvd.     Thus  all  difficulties  are  cleared 
up;    so   many  cities  claimed    him  as    their  own,   because    in 
this  sense   each  of   thom   had   a    TTomer;    the   age   in    which 
he    lived    was    variously    assigned ;    for    in    this    sense   HomeV 
lived  in  the  mouths  and  memories  of  the  Greeks  for  460  years, 
from  the  war  of  Troy  to  the  time  of  Numa.     He  waa  said 

■■  *''  ScmbrmDo  t*i  pocml  CMcre  lUd  per  ptu  eta  c  tla  piu  maoi  laromti  t  roffidolU.^ 
St;.N.  III.  19, 


Vim. 


S41 


to  be  poor  and  blind,  because  such  was  really  the  condition 
of  the  pa'^io^oi.  The  Iliad  wok  prrnluced  in  the  youthful 
age  of  Greece,  when  pride,  passion  und  vengeance  were  its 
characteristics,  as  exhibited  in  Achilles;  the  Odyssey,  vben 
re6exiun  had  cooled  the  passions,  and  tlie  calm  sagacity  of 
Ulysses  wa&  an  object  of  admiration. 

Notwithstanding  the  coincidence  between  the  opinions  of 
Vieo  and  Wolf,  respecting  the  mixed  authorship  and  late 
arrangement  of  the  Homeric  poems,  it  is  evident  that  they 
were  led  in  very  different  ways  to  their  conclusion.  The  germ 
of  Woirs  speculations  was  no  doubt  the  passage  in  which 
Bcntley  declares  his  opinion,  that  the  Iliad  and  Odvssi'V  were 
not  reduced  into  an  epic  poem,  till  5(Ht  years  after  their  first 
composition".  To  emulate  the  fame  of  the  author  of  the 
Dissertation  on  the  £piBtles  of  Pholaris,  and  be  deemed,  in 
the  higher  criticism,  the  Bentley  of  his  own  age,  was  the 
great  object  of  Wolfs  ambition.  Vico,  regarding  the  time 
of  the  monarchy  at  Rome  as  answering  nearly  to  the  heroic 
age  of  Greece,  wa«  naturally  led  to  place  the  lower  limit  of 
the  Homeric  school  as  late  as  poHsible;  while,  having  adopted 
the  common  date  of  the  war  of  Troy,  he  was  compellet)  to 
extend  it  upwards  four  centuries  and  a  half.  By  making 
Homer  not  an  individual,  but  the  representative  of  the  genius 
of  the  heroic  age,  he  extricates  himself  from  thia  difficulty. 
Vico^s  most  startling  porailoxes  will  usually  he  found  to  arise 
from  the  obscure  perception  of  some  great  truth.  According 
to  the  common  opinion  of  the  learned  in  his  time,  all  that 
was  not  pure  histor>'  in  the  Iliad  was  the  fiction  of  one 
individual,  who  had  invented  heroic  poetry  and  brought  it 
to  perfection.  There  is  however  another  way  in  which  the 
absurdity  of  this  opinion  may  be  avoided,  without  contra- 
dictiug  Grecian  belief  and  tradition  so  violently  as  V'icu  does. 
Tf  the  theme  of  the  Trojan  war  had  l)een  long  treated  by 
the  heroic  poets  of  Greece,  who  had  fixe<l  itR  outlines,  created 
a  poetic  vocabulary,  and  a  system  of  harmonious  versification, 
**thc  blind  old  man  of  Scio,^  who  entered  into  the  inheritance 
of  their  forgotten    labours,  may  be  allowed  to  retain  his  per- 

>*  !>M  ih*  piMAK*  from  Philtlratbtnu  UpiMuU,  qnoltd  in  WoU'.  Prolc^.  «<l 
Hota.  p.  cxv. 


649 


Vieo. 


tonality,    and   yet   lie   fairly   considered    as   reprrsenting   tbr 
genius  of  several  generation!!. 

The  resemblance  between  the  opinions  of  Vico  respecting 

!  the  early  constitution  of  Rome,  and  those  of  Niebubr,   must 

have   been    evident   in    the   sketch   already    given.     That    all 

history    originates  in    poetry,    is   a   principle    repeatedly    laid 

down  in  the  Scicuza  Nuova,  and  applied  to  tlie  Roman    liis- 

I  tory*  though  I  do  not  remember  that  Vico  any  where  allude* 

to  the  festive  songs,   which  Niebuhr  regards   as    the   element  • 

of  the  epic  lays,  whence  the  annalists  derived  their  materials. 

One  coincidence  is  remarkable;   Vico  hod  observed,  that  the 

ancient    Roman    commanders    who   had   obtained   a    triumph, 

I  recorded  it  in  what  has  the  air  of  an  heroic  verse;  as  L.  /K. 

,  Hegillus, 

Duello  magno  dirimendo,  Regibus  subjugandis, 
I  and  Acilius  Glabrio, 

Fundit,  fugat,  prosternit  maximas  legiones. 
Niebuhr  thinks  the  inscriptions  on  the  tombs  of  the  Scipioi, 
i  commemorative    of   their  triumphs,    to  be  in  Saturnian    men- 
laure.     That  the  popttlus  at  Home  was  at  first  an  aristocratic 
[body,  that  the  comiiia  cxtriata  were  patrician  asscinbliea,   that 
[the  pMts  were  cnptives  made  in  war,  and  not  possessing  any 
I  political  right,  much  less  the  right  of  electing  kings,  are  the 
[fundamental  positions  of  Nicbuhr'^s  history  of  the  constitution, 
and  at  their  first  promulgation  tliey  came  upon  the  world  with 
the    eifcct    of   perfect    novelties ;    yet   these   ore    all    distinctly 
contained  in  the  Scienza  Nuova.     There  are  at  the  same  time 
minor  differences ;  Vico  supposes  that  the  plebs  of  Rome  arose  , 
from  the  destruction  of  an  old  Greek   town   on   the  banks  of  ' 
the  Tiber,  whose  ])opulation  was  thus  reduced  into   the  coa- 
dition  in  which  we  find  the  original  plebs;  Niebuhr  seems  to 
regard   the  plebs  as  originating  with  the  conquests  of  Ancu.% 
Martins;  Vico  speaks  of  the  clients  as  belonging  to  the  pleb% 
Niebuhr,  against  the  testimony  of  Livy  and  Dionysius,  denies 
this ;    Vico  derives   Quirites    from   quiris,    a  spear,    and    sup- 
poses it  to  describe  the  original  aristocracy  as  alone  bearing 
arms;  Niebuhr  first  derived  the  name  from  Ca-re,  afterwards 
from  a  town  Quirium,  which   he  supjwsed  to  have    adjoined 
the   original   town   of    Romulus   on   the    Palatine   bill.      The 


Vico. 


64S 


subsequent  parts  uf  ihe  lii^tory  are  only  iiijiJeiitully  touched 
upon  by  Vico,  and  there  is  no  other  striking  coincideDce 
with  Niebuhr  thati  that  which  follow*  neceti^arity  frcnn  their 
agreement  an  to  the  original  form  of  the  government.  Of 
tlie  I^icinian  law  Vicu  speaks*  us  historians  commonly  had 
done  bt^forc  Heyne,  as  regulating  the  auiuunt  of  landed  j)ro- 
perty  which  any  citizen  might  possess.  The  French  editor, 
M.  Michelet,  speaks  of  Montesquieu  and  Niebuhr  oa  having 
followed  the  opinions  of  Vico  respecting  the  institutions  of 
Servius  Tullius'*  (p.  135).  There  arc  not  many  things  in 
which  Montesquieu  and  Niebuhr  agree,  and  if  by  following 
is  meant  copying  Vico,  this  is  not  one  of  them.  The  course 
of  Nicbuhr's  investigations  has  been  indicated  by  himself,  and 
docs  not  even  run  parallel  with  those  nf  Vico.  Indeed  it 
is  only  necessary  to  have  read  the  Scienza  Nuova,  to  be 
convinced  that  it  was  impossible  for  an  historical  critic  to 
borrow  from  it:  every  thing  is  so  closely  connected  with  his 
fanciful  system  of  the  progress  and  revolutions  of  society, 
and  offered  with  such  entire  neglect  of  historical  evidence, 
that  no  one  who  thought  it  requisite  that  his  opinions  should 
have  a  sound  historical  basis,  could  take  tliem  on  the  au- 
thority of  Vico,  He  must  at  least  have  gone  through  the 
labour  of  underpinning'  the  whole  system,  and  building  a 
new  and  sound  foundation  to  support  the  parts  which  he 
wished  to  preserve.  Now  that  Vico*'s  conclusions  have  been 
reached  by  mure  legitimate  reasoning,  and  established  un  pro- 
bable or  certain  evidence,  we  look  back  with  suqmse  on  tlicir 
singular  anticipations;  but  there  is  no  reasim  to  believe  that 
they  guided  or  even  suggested  the  trains  of  research  which 
others  have  pursued.  Kven  in  Italy  itself  the  Scienza  Nuova 
seems  to  have  been  almost  neglected,  after  tlic  author's  death, 
till  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  and  beyond  the 
Alps  it  has  certainly  become  known  only  in  consequence  of 
its  coincidences  with  modern  discoveries. 

**  So  the  editor  of  the  Milan  edirian  KHfii,  "  Mimtcsquicu,  che  nc  conohlif  tatto 
il  merilo,  Iruporti'i  nelln  SptHtn  d«1le  Iff^gi  molte  idee  dtl  nontm  Autore  senia 
neppiir  nwminarlo,  e  quMtJ  le  qc  doUf  acerbamcnte:  do  nan  e  coca  iiuoliu  fn  gU 
oltTvmontAni  cJic  approtittftrono  dcUc  opere  del  nostri  in).e||:nl  autori."  To  so  v^gut 
»  iharge  it  u  difficult  to  reply ;  but  the  nyiten»  of  Vico  uiil  AfonlrMiuicu  appcbr 
ta  be  cucntially  diBrrctii,  ind  )i  is  bard  to  concelvf  how  th«  author  of  ihfl  Kapril 
dm  LoJK  hhmild  hate  f^t  throujfh  a  alnfcle  book  of  tlM  Seiema  Nuova* 

Vol  II.  No.  6.  4N 


644  Vico. 

Without  encroaching  on  the  just  claims  of  other  men,  to 
exalt  the  fame  of  Vico,  we  may  safely  pronounce  him  to  have 
been  one  of  the  most  original  thinkers  whom  his  country  has 
produced.  At  the  time  at  which  he  lived,  it  was  perhaps 
impossible  to  do  more  than  detect  the  falsehood  of  long* 
established  opinions,  to  discover  and  demonstrate  the  truth 
which  should  be  substituted  for  them,  was  necessarily  the 
work  of  a  succeeding  age.  But  he  who  first  shakes  the  found- 
ation of  an  edifice  of  ancient  error,  should  not  be  deprived 
of  our  gratitude,  though  he  only  leaves  the  ground  encumbered 
with  ruins,  without  being  able  to  build  up  any  thing  in  the 
room  of  what  he  has  overthrown.  Were  he  even  as  wdU 
qualified  to  construct  as  to  destroy,  be  finds  neither  tools 
nor  materials  prepared  for  this  second  labour.  Even  the 
deep  religious  and  moral  feeling  which  engaged  Vico  in  the 
attempt  to  demonstrate  the  law  by  which  Providence  governs 
the  world,  has  probably  led  him  into  error  by  inducing  him 
unconsciously  to  combine  the  facts  of  history  and  judge  of 
their  credibility,  according  to  their  apparent  conformity  with 
this  law.  The  only  method  of  avoiding  similar  errors  in  his- 
torical inquiries  is,  with  singleness  of  purpose,  to  try  every- 
thing by  its  own  evidence,  confident  that  whatever  may  be- 
come of  opinion,  truth  can  never  be  inconsistent  with  truth. 

M.  C.  Y.  I.  K. 


'  I       'fc*."      '>l  1*  fW*  I 


KEGIA   HOMERICA* 


Douus  umnjs  re^s,  ve\  principis  alicujus  viri,  Hoineri- 
cis  tcmporibus,  in  media  area,  uiuru  circumsepta,  sita  crat ; 
atque  in  eo  muro  jauua  exterior,  Tpodvpov^  sive  &vpai  avXetaty 
duplici  valva,  ^ixXi^«<ri,  claudenda,  ita  patebat  ut  currus  et 
equi  coiotnodc  traiisirc  posscnt^ 

£i  ex  advertto  erat  janiia  interior,  Qupa  sive  Qvperpovt 
viam  in  atrium  priebens,  quod,  media  ac  pra^ipua  pars  duDius, 
ad  cc'iiti-uos  siinul  et  phires  etiam  tx>uvivas  accipiendos  nptuni 
et  iduiieum;  caiuiiio  uiagno,  qui  siiuul  omnibus  pro  culina 
erat,  iastructum";  p«rvitK|ue  et  prsealtig  feneslris,  opao&vpatft 
per  quas  lumen  imjIIh  intraret,  et  lauipudum  funiua  extret^, 
in  altuni  patebat  usque  ad  tectum,  quod,  in  liac  parte,  solarium 
fuisse  opurtct  ut  homines  in  eo  dormitum  irent,  et  pernocta- 
rent  ad  frigub  captandum,  quomodo  Elpenor  in  domo  Circes*. 
Fucritne  caminus  in  medio  atrio,  an  in  pariete,  baud  facile 
dixerim ;  fled  usus  Fiimpbcior  et  antiquior  in  medio  fuisse 
putius  suadet. 

Duplici  eolumnarum  lignearum  seric  suffultum  erat,  in 
quas,  et  hastas  innixas,  et  seUulas  puncbant ;  nonullos  barum 
ita,  ut  ad  focum  etiam  sedentes  columnis  simul  inniterentur^; 
qucxl,  unica  ct  media  duntaxat  serie,  in  t'anto  spatiu,  iicri  non 
poterat.  Pavimentum  erat  nullum,  ne  glarea  quidem,  argilla, 
vel  arena  ijtratuni ;   et  suluni  ipsum  tarn  parum  complanatum 


*  The  Above  diisamtion  wu  written  by  Air  Psjrne  Knight,  uid  loioe  ropi«s  of  it 
priv«icly  distributed  by  him,  •  lew  years  kfler  the  publication  of  his  edition  of  iloiuer. 
As  however  he  Aid  nut  live  to  utiprrinteod  a  new  edition  of  th*t  work,  and  u  the  dis- 
MTtalion  in  quemion  bad  received  the  iiuihur*i  Uit  hand^  there  in  no  reuon  why  It 
dioold  not  now  be  laid  before  th«  public  O.  C,  L. 

■  II.  fi.  161,  323.    Od.  A.I03.    ^.  30.  11.  4,  P.  ^265.    £.100,     #.  38(». 
«  Od.  7..  Sm.    U.  1&4.     11.  248—253.  '  Od.  X.  128,  &c. 

•  Od.  K.  OM. 

■  IM.  A.  137.     y-.  30JV.    e.  AS,  473.     4'.  89. 


646  Regia  Homerica. 

et  induratum,  vel  Integra  8Uper6cie  conservatum,  ut  Telema- 
chus  nulio  quasi  negotio,  et  nullius  incoaimodo,  fossam  in  eo 
ad  certamen  sagittaadi  foderet'.  Juxta  tamen  in  area,  ante 
fores,  spatium  erat  complanatum,  ^dire^v  tvktov,  lapidibus 
forte  stratum,  ad  corpora  inter  epulas  exercenda'. 

Foribus  hinc  inde  adjuncta,  prolate  domi  tecto,  erant  ves- 
tibula,  irpo^ofioi,  in  quibus  hospites,  ut  suo  quisque  com- 
modo,  quaodo  vellent,  nemine  soUicitato,  abire  possent,  per- 
noctabant ;  atque^  super  ea,  porticus  apert&e — aWovaai — 
quibus  soles  hibemos,  vel  flatus  aestivos,  nocte  dieque,  quili- 
bet  captaret^. 

Pone  atrium  erant  cubicula  et  conclavia  secretiora,  daXa- 
/Aoi  ev  fivy^  BwfiaTOi,  in  quibus  pater  et  raaterfamilias,  et 
ancillse  lectiores  pernoctabant ;  et  res  pretiosiores  conserva- 
bantur  et  custodiebantur,  et  balnea  calefiebant,  igne  extrin- 
secuB  subjecto ;  atque,  super  ea,  alia  cubicula  et  conclavia, 
virepma,  in  quibus  puellse,  viduse,  et  mulieres,  quarum. 
mariti  aberant,  sese  cum  ancillis  secretas  tenebant' ;  dum 
omnes  alterius  sexus  servi,  ^prjtrTripeit  foris,  extra  etiam  mu- 
rum  exteriorem,  epKos  ai/X^r,  pemoctasse  videntur". 

Scalae  singulae,  quibus  in  cubicula  et  conclavia  superiora, 
porticus  apertas,  et  solarium,  ascenderetur,  extrinsecus  ad 
parietes  utrimque  positse  videntur^' ;  ita  ut  cuivis  foeminarum 
descendere,  et  ad  atrii  fores  venire,  nullo  obstante  vel  obser- 
vante,  ad  libitum  liceret^';  at  nemini  tamen  ex  eo  evadere, 
reclusa  in  cubicula  et  conclavia  inferiora  via,  nisi  perrupto 
pariete  interiore,  ligneo  fortasse,  vel  cratitio  et  argillaceo,  per 
cujus  fragmina  et  foramen,  ava  pwya%  fxeydpoio,  Melanthius 
in  conclave,  quo  arma  deposita  erant,  ascendisse  videtur". 

Non  me  quidem  fugit  voces,  optroOvptjv  et  ptayw,  obscuras 
admodum  esse,  et  vexatissimas  variis  et  discrepantibus  inter- 
pretationibus :  quas  tamen  recensere  et  discutere  baud  operae 
pretium  duxi ;  quum  mihi  persuasum  sit,  sensum,  quem  radices 
et  elementa,  primaria  signiBcatione,  praebent,  in  omnibus  verio- 
rem  esse,  si  sententiee  simul  satis  aptus  sit. 


•  Od.  *.  120.  7  Od.  A.  62Jt.  p.  160. 

'  Od.  r.  399.    A.  296—305.     H.  345.    r.  1,  92. 

•Il.n.l84.    Q.  191.     Od.  A.304.    H.946.     X.  206.    «.  ft,  64. 
"■  Od.  r.  160.  II  Od.  K.  fi66. 

■•Od.  A.3S0.     £.205.     T.  600.    «.  ft.  <*  Od.  X.  19fr.l4S,  Ac 


Segia  ffomerica. 


6*1 


Culiiiinis  et  8otarii  contignationes,  extra  parietes,  tjuaqua- 
versum  prolata-  ense  videntur;  atque  trabes  protrusK  ct  ex- 
tantcs  aliis  caliininis  extemis  suftuUic:  Telctnachus  cnim, 
aides  ingressuriiSf  siiam,  ul  jam  ingrcssus,  Minervie  liastam 
columna*  innixam  ponit  ,*  ct  f'uneni,  c  quo  anctllic  peccontes, 
Euo  quccquc  laquco,  suspondantur,  a  magna  volumna  extt^n- 
Bum,  circa  thalutn  ncctit";  quani  columiiam  ad  domum  ipsam 
perlinuissc  oportct  <)uoniam  oniiiis  culnnma,  qux  singula  et 
otiusa  stareti  ueque  a^dein  aliquain  suffulciret  vel  suntineret, 
ffTijXi;  non  jciuji;  fuerat ;  quas  male  confudit  Eustathius;  el 
pejus  interpres  ejus  Eruesti  irkpi^  ad  interiorem,  uon  exteriu- 
rem,  tholi  superficiem  retulit^^. 

Tlinhim  hunc  a>diculani  fuisse  mtundam,  lapidibus  ex- 
tructam,  inter  domum  et  miirum  exteriorem,  plane  ii<|uet : 
Bed  usum  ejus,  secretiarem  forsitan  et  minus  honestum,  quum 
poeta  non  indica\-erit,  nuUo  modo  nunc  scire  licet. 

Similia  formis  fortasse,  etsi  majora,  fuerunt  culiicula  ills, 
ftibi  inviceni  vicina,  et  separata  tamen,  et  sub  tectis  singula 
singuli!^ :  quw  principis  filii  et  generi,  cum  sua  quisque  uxore, 
tenebant ;  baud  aliter  quam  Afrorum  interiorem,  circa  Nigrum 
fluviutn,  uxore«)  suum  quseque  tugurium,  juxta  mariti  com- 
munis a'des,  hodic  tenent'".  Ejusmixli  fuissc  vidclur  Telo- 
machi  cubiculum'';  necnon  ct  illi  sexaginta  duo  QaKa$iM 
YrXfJ<r(ot  aWijXotf  circum  Priami  regiam  construct! '".  In  ea 
tamen  columna-  nequaquam  niemurantur ;  et  quum  Baxis 
doUtis  vcl  oscintis,  l^icroio  ^i0oio,  parietes  nninino  extructi 
cssent,  pilu?,  c  lapidc  angular!,  earum  forte  vice  fungebantur, 
tam  intrinsecuB  quaiii  extrinsecus. 

Separata  ista  atllBcia,  sive  cubicula,  sive  tbolos,  culoii- 
nibus  fastigiatis  tecta  esse,  forma  rotunda  suadet ;  atque  ita 
forte  extremas  domus  ipsius  partes,  atria  niediu,  utrimque 
juDctas;  ut  in  tempUs  posthiec  cilandis  ;  nam  ejusmodi  cou- 
tignationes,  in  aediHciis  etiam  majaribus,  poeCse  et  audieiiti* 
bus  satis  notas  esse,  e  comparatione  earum  cum  luctantibus 
Ajace  et  ITljsse,  plane  liquet'*.  In  secretiore  domus  secessu 
dormicbant   Menclaua  et    Helena^;    at    Ulysses  et    Penelope 


'•  Od.  A.127.  p.M.  X,4M. 
'*  Psrfce't  Joumejr. 
'■  n.  Z.  942,  Ac. 


•■  Vide  Piole«.  s.  xlrU 
>i  Od.  A.  43A. 
I»  II.  ♦.  713. 


640 


Hegia  Homerica. 


foris»  inter   sqsaratas  a^Uiculas,  eubiculum  habuisse  videntur; 
aiicilla  enim,  lecto  strato,  dunjuia,  otKovSf,  redibftC"'. 

lu  porticibuBt  inter  coluinnas  cxternas  ct  parietes,  equi 
el  junieata  ad  pra-sepia*  et  currus  parietibus  iniiixi,  wpo% 
§vwitta,  stetitue  videntur;  atque  ubi  niliil  crat  cjusiuodi,  ut 
in  Ithacat  moltv  Versailles ;  quibus,  in  Uly&sis  icdibus,  duo- 
decim  ancilluc  triticum  ad  prcKos  pasceudus  contitiuo  mole- 
hant :  vestibulo  enim,  quo  peruoctabaC  ilk,  ita  vicino:  erant, 
ut  vocem  precantis  audire  posset;  et  in  loco  sic  apcrto,  ul 
mnlinaria  relicta  coeluni  eircutnspiceret ;  et  sic  simul  ab  ioilHV 
tecta?,  ut  opus  nihil  molestiic  vel  impediinenti  ab  eo  acciperet". 
Columnas,  et  intemas  et  externas,  strintas  fuisse  ul  hasta; 
iiK  innixiB,  aliaque  cjusniodi,  commode  ct  secure  restarcnt, 
jampridcm  demonstrare  conatus  sum'^  ;  atquc  neaooncn  spatia 
fuissc  atrii  media,  inter  utramque  columnarum  seriem,  quum 
nonicn  ipsum,  turn  usus  carum  in  navibus,  vix  dubitare  binit. 
In  nave  malus  cum  locum  obtlnebat,  atque  in  a'dc  forutou 
caniinus.  pilis  Rufl'ultus. 

Ex  hujusmndi  Eedi6ciis,  tain  rudi  airoplicitate,  in  usum  et 
conimofliiin  conimunem  et  rulgareni  huminuin  incultorum  et 
agrestiiim,  constructia,  templa  ilia  deorum,  quro  po6t^,  lam 
aumptunsa  nia^niticLiitia  et  t'xquisita  clegantia,  ubique  condi* 
derunl  ct  ornarunl,  furtnus  priiuuriat)  acccpisse  videntur :  nam 
in  tres  partes,  irpobofjiov,  vaov,  et  oiri^otoiiovj  perinde  atque 
iKles  principum  antiquiorum,  dividebautur;  quarum  me 
ifaok,  qua?  atrii  locum  tenebat,  in  niajonbus  pleribtjuc,  apcrC«^3 
ad  copUim,  u7rai$piay  patebat,  ut  atrium  solario  tautum  tcge^ 
batur ;  dum  duas  cxtrcmas,  in  utriAque,  testudiuatiu  tuctaa 
esse,  ratio  utilitatifl  in  his,  ut  exempla  extantia  in  illis,  plane 
[Brguit*':  lectarum  cnim  fcpniinarum  cuhicula  et  conclavia 
cura  atque  o|K?ra  majore  a  pluviis  et  frigoribus  tuenda  eraiit 
quam  virorum  triclinia,  intcrdiu  tantum  uccupato.  Distri- 
fautio  quoque  columnarum,  et  intus  et  circa  parietes,  cadem 
in  utrisquc  fuisse  videtiir;  necnon  et  ref^evov  sacrum,  aive 
tepov,  eodem  modo  septum  quo  twXr}  Homerica. 

In  templis  auteni,  tcstudinata  tegulis  mormoreis  vel  late- 
ritiis  obducta  erant;  dum  in  iedibu»  regiis  priorura  temporuui, 

"  <W.*.  291. 

»  Od.  V.  lOft,  &e,  w  proleg.  >.  jdtii. 

**  Vide  PwsU  (ma.  m^j.  et  alia  Dorica  antiqua. 


Regia  Homerica. 


649 


et  ea  et  solaria  anaibuii  tantum  tabulata ;  atquc  altera  ilia  cu- 
bicula,  extrinsecus  posita,  culniis  forte  vel  stipulii*  tecla  :  nam, 
in  ca  inscitiu  rerutn,  nct]ue  calx,  neqtie  Uteres  coctiles  noli 
oninino  esse  vidcntur;  at  facile  semper  et  in  promptu  erat 
tabula-s,  regina  et  arena  perniiKtis,  cuitgUitinare ;  et  rimas  et 
interstitia  obturare  et  opplere. 

His  omnibus  consideratis,  roihi  pro  coniperto  est,  Grsecos 
veteres  tarn  elegantias  quani  rudinienta  artis  ex  utilitatis 
ratione  et  experientia  omnino  traxisse ;  nequc  ab  .Egyptiis, 
aut  Pliccniciis,  aut  uUa  alia  cxtera  gentc,  aliquid  mometiti  aut 
didicisse,  aut  mutuum  acccpissc.  vEdes  hominum  ad  vitic 
necessitndines  et  consuetudines,  loconmi  commoditates,  et 
ccpli  tempcriem,  aptatse  erant ;  atque  deorum  imIps  ad  earum 
similitudinem,  stnictiira  dtintnxnt  firniiore,  materia  stabiliore, 
et  spatio  am])liore,  ut  cd'k'stibiis,  imniortalibus,  et  omnipo- 
tentibu»  convenirent,  irdiiicatae  sunt ;  omnibus  auctis^  et  quie 
ligno  facta  erant,  lapide  extriictis;  at  forma  tamen  et  distri- 
butiorie  autiqua,  ut  in  sacra  e  profanis  translata,  rcligios6 
retcnta. 

Coluranie  ipsae  mapTiitudine  duntaxat  et  materia  diffe- 
rebant;  quippe  antiquiores,  qu«  tiingula?  e  singuUs  arborum 
truQcis  fieb^nt,  et  ligneam  tantum  coiitignationem  parvi  pon- 
deria  sustiuebant,  graciliores  proculdubio  pro  altitudine  erant, 
quam  ullas  uUius  ordinis  esse  ratio  artis  adulta  sineret :  ncque 
altitudinem  earum  ultra  viginti  pedum  mensuram  utilitas, 
quiD  tunc  omnia  ejusmodi  prjefinicbnt,  productani  esse  patere- 
tur.  Paxillarum  igitur,  quam  columnarum,  nomine  digniores, 
hoc  nostro  tpstimante  seculo,  hnberentur. 

Quum  trabes  lignea"  pro  ivtarvK'tQi';  lis  impoiicnda"  csscnt, 
non  solum  graciliores  et  tcnuiores,  sal  rariorcs  etiam,  esse 
licebat,  et  magis  a  se  inviecm  distare;  cujus  forma?  el  distri- 
butioni»«  in  ligneis  ledificii!!  elegaiitioribus,  iisum,  Cipsaribus 
etiam  imperantibus,  baud  prorsus  exolevissc,  ex  Herculani 
picturis  plane  liquet"*. 


»  Tab.  usix.  Ac. 


OGYGES. 


Though  it  would  be  quite  contrary  to  the  design  and 
spirit  of  this  Miscellany  to  make  it  a  stage  for  controversy, 
it  does  not  exclude  amicable  criticism  on  any  part  of  its  own 
contents.  We  need  therefore  offer  no  apology  for  the  remarks 
we  are  about  to  make  on  one  of  the  essays  in  our  last  number, 
which  contains  some  opinions  on  a  mythological  question  from 
which  we  find  ourselves  compelled  to  dissent.  We  do  this 
with  the  less  hesitation  because  on  such  subjects  the  only 
chance  of  approaching  the  truth,  which  is  perhaps  the  utmost 
that  is  within  our  reach,  is  by  investigating  it  in  various  direc- 
tions, and  examining  it  from  many  different  points  of  view: 
and  we  feel  sure  that  if  in  the  present  instance  a  comparison 
of  the  opinion  we  are  about  to  propose  or  rather  to  defend 
with  that  to  which  it  is  opposed  should  throw  any  light  on 
the  subject,  there  is  ,no  one  to  whom,  the  result  will  be  more 
welcome  than  to  the  author  of  the  abovementioned  essay.  We 
speak  of  the  article  on  the  early  Kings  of  Attica,  and  of  the 
hypothesis  maintained  in  it  on  the  name  and  history  of  Ogyges. 
We  begin  by  taking  common  ground  with  J.  K.  on  the  main 
question  concerning  this  personage,  whom  we  also  assume  to 
be  merely  fabulous.  In  the  mind  of  Raoul  Bochette,  and 
perhaps  of  many  others,  he  is,  we  are  aware,  quite  as  much  a 
historical  person  as  Hugh  Capet :  and  since,  as  it  has  been 
well  observed,  '*  we  want  certain  acknowledged  criteria,  by 
which  to  distinguish  between  what  is  mythical  and  what  is 
historical:  and  these,  it  will  not  be  easy  to  find  :^^  (Dr  Arnold 
Thucydides  Preface  Vol.  ii.  p.  xiv.)  it  is  possible  that  we  may 
never  be  able  to  prove  the  contrary,  any  more  than  we  can  now. 
But  as  there  is  no  saying  how  long  we  may  have  to  wait  for 
the  decisive  criteria,  we  take,  as  we  freely  give,  the  liberty 
of  forming  a  provisional  opinion  on  the  subject,  and  presuming 


Ogyge: 


6o1 


king  Ogyges  to  be  a  creature  of  fiction,  we  conHne  ourselves 
to  the  inquiry :  what  may  have  been  tlie  cause  of  his  name 
having  btcn  placed  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  Attic  Kings. 

According  to  J.  K.  Ogyges,  a  lengthened  fomi  of  Gyges, 
signifies  a  raan  of  darkness,  being  derived  from  the  noun  yuyij 
which  was  equivalent  to  aKoroi.  This  would  appear  indeed 
to  Ik?  something  more  than  conjecture,  if  wc  could  rely  on  the 
present  reading  in  Hesychius,  in  the  words  rvymtj  vC^,  17 
aKoreiv^.  But  we  arc  rather  surprised  that  J-  K.,  who  quote* 
another  gloss  of  the  same  lexicographer,  ilXvyioiv,  crKoTetfutv 
should  not  have  been  struck  with  the  inference  which  it  sug- 
gests against  the  genuineness  of  the  woni  yvyat^,  for  which 
the  editors  of  Hesychius  with  one  accord  have  proposed  to 
substitute  Xvyaitj.  Still  it  would  not  follow,  if  this  connec- 
tion is  admitted,  that  'Qyvyi&i  niay  not  originally  have  signi- 
fied dark.  Who  can  say,  if  Alberti's  suspicion  is  well  founded, 
and  we  ought  to  read  the  gloss  Vvrj,  ytjt  after  yvyatr'i,  that 
yt/yatov  may  not  have  been  derived  from  yvrj^  and  have 
been  equivalent  to  y&ovtoi,  which  might  answer  J.  K''s  pur- 
pose even  belter  than  the  etymology  which  he  adopts.  But 
leaving  this  in  its  present  uncertainty,  we  proceed  to  consider 
the  arguments  produced  in  confirmation  of  the  lexicographer's 
very  questionable  evidence.  Calypso's  island  was  named 
Oyirfirj^  and  it  was  *'  situated  on  the  furthest  verge  of  the 
West,  the  region  of  the  evening  shades,'*  and  **  the  goddess 
herself  appears  from  her  name  to  have  been  originally  a  being 
presiding  over  darkness."  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  the 
sense  of  dark  suits  very  well  the  Homeric  application  of  the 
name  to  Calypso's  island.  I  must  own  that  the  force  of  this 
inference  appears  to  me  to  he  considerably  weakened  by  the 
fact,  that  however  near  Homer  may  have  imagined  I'alypso's 
island  to  have  been  to  the  region  of  the  evening  shades,  he 
does  not  represent  it  as  itself  dark  or  gloomy :  and  whatever 
he  may  have  thought  of  the  proper  functions  of  the  nymph, 
he  docs  not  describe  her  as  withdrawing  her  charms  from 
view.  To  any  eye  but  that  of  Ulysses  Ogygia  would  have 
seemed  a  very  cheerful  place ;  for  it  is  one  on  which  even  a 
god  might  gaze  with  delight,  and  which  by  its  beauty  arrests 
the  step!!  of  Hermes  when  he  is  bearing  his  message  (Od. 
"R.  75):  and  the  hero  is  well  awnre  how  inferior  hii*  Penelope 
Vol.  1 1.  No.  6.  *0 


652  Ogyges. 

is  in  personal  attractions  to  Calypso  ^bid.  2l6).  To  the  poet 
of  the  Odyssey  therefore  the  names  of  Ogygia  and  Calypso 
can  scarcely  hare  suggested  the  notion  of  darkness,  or  at  least 
he  did  not  intend  they  should  do  so  to  others.  Still  it  may 
be  conceived  that,  in  the  work,  of  some  elder  poet,  Ogygia  had 
really  been  used  to  signify  the  dark  island,  and  that  Calypoo 
was  an  invisible  goddess,  but  that  Hcnner,  while  he  retained 
the  names,  transported  the  place  and  the  person  into  the  light 
of  day.  What  it  was  that  procured  the  name  Oyv^ioi'  for  the 
mountain  mentioned  by  the  writer  of  whom  ApoUodorus  spoke, 
in  illustrating  the  ignorance  of  geography  and  the  tendencj 
to  fable  which  he  found  in  authors  later  than  Homer,  we  can 
DOW  no  more  ascertain  than  the  position  in  which  it  was  placed : 
but  it  may  have  stood  very  close  to  the  abode  of  the  Gorgons 
and  the  Hesperides,  without  being  wrapped  in  darkness :  neither 
in  this  case  nor  in  the  other  have  we  anything  more  than  a 
bare  possibility  that  the  name  Ogygian  may  once  have  been 
equivalent  to  dark.  As  little  can  we  safely  determine  from 
a  single  feature  in  the  legend  of  Gyges,  what  the  one  was  to 
which  he  was  indebted  for  his  name.  The  son  of  Ovpawo^  and 
r^  mentioned  in  the  Theogony  was  probably  not  Vvytis,  but 
Tvtj^i  MembrOf  as  Hermann  translates  the  name  in  his  disserta- 
tion de  Mythol.  Gra?c.  antiq.  (Opusc.  ii.  p.  176.)  referring  to 
Bentley^s  note  on  Horace  Carm.  11.  xvii.  14.  which  shews 
the  necessity  of  the  emendation.  Muretus  (Var.  Lect.  vi.  13.) 
found  Vurts  in  several  manuscripts  of  Hesiod,  which  he  describes 
as  opHmtB  notee, 

A  great  step  however  would  be  taken  toward  deter- 
mining the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word  wyuyio^^  if  it 
could  be  shewn  to  have  been  used  in  the  sense  of  dark  by 
^schyluB  and  Pindar;  for  we  could  hardly  hesitate  to  con- 
sider this  as  earlier  than  the  other  of  ancUnt,  which  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  be  the  only  one  found  at  least  in  the  poets 
after  Homer.  And  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  the  passage 
which  J.  K.  cites  from  the  Eumenides  1039)  where  the  Furies 
are  invited  to  go  'yap  vvo  KcvOeaiv  toyvyiotat,  the  sense  of  dark 
is  very  applicable ;  but  whether  it  is  the  only  one  that  suits 
the  context,  or  does  so  better  than  any  other,  remains  to  be 
seen.  The  same  epithet  is  applied  to  the  woody  mountains 
of  Phlius  by  Pindar  Nem.  vi.  ao-Kiois  ^Xtovvros  vr   toyvyloit 


653 


ifisat.  Here  however  J.  K.  appears  to  think  that  it  ought 
to  l»e  translated  not  dark.^  but  Ogygiatiy  that  ia  connected 
with  certain  ancient  institutions  foundetl  by  Ogyges;  for  at 
Celeee,  near  Phlius,  were  celebrated  nocturnal  rites,  similar 
to  those  of  Elcusis.  Now  it  is  to  a  supposed  connexion  be- 
tween Ogyges  and  the  Eleusininn  mysteries  that  J.  K.  ascribes 
the  place  wliicli  he  fills  at  the  head  of  the  kings  of  Attica. 
Darkness  is  the  prominent  character  of  the  mysteries  :  hence 
their  founder  was  an  Ogyges^  a  man  of  darkness.  I  do  not 
find  it  distinctly  explauied  in  J.  K's  essay,  why,  on  this 
supposition,  Ogvges  was  made  the  Jirst  king  of  Attica: 
since  the  introduction  of  tlie  mysteries  was  according  to  all 
the  legends  of  comparatively  late  date.  I'erhaps  however  the 
author  considers  this  seeming  inconsistency  sufficiently  recon- 
ciled by  his  remark,  that  Ogyges  properly  belonged  not  to 
Attica  but  to  Bceotia,  from  which  the  mysteries  themselves 
were  imported  to  Eleusis:  this  we  may  suppose  led  the  Attic 
mythographers  to  place  Ogyges  as  far  back  as  possible  in  their 
list. 

The  main  question  however  is :  what  reason  we  have  for 
connecting  the  name  of  Ogyges  with  the  Kleusinian  n)ysterie8: 
for  if  Pindar  could  use  the  epithet  Ogygian  of  the  Phliasian 
mountains,  because  Eleusinian  rites  were  celebrated  in  a  neigh- 
bouring town,  Ogyges  must  have  l)een  very  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  these  rites.  The  first  trace  of  such  an  association 
which  J.  K.  points  out,  is  a  genealogy  of  the  hero  Eleusis, 
whom  the  Eleusinians  named  as  the  founder  of  their  city, 
and  who,  according  tu  one  account,  was  a  son  of  Ogygus, 
Then  the  Eleusinian  religion  came  from  Bceotia — for  in  that 
country  thcrL*  was  an  ancient  Eleusis,  and  out  of  it  Eumolpus 
came  into  Attica — and  Ogyges  was  king  of  Htrotin,  or  at  least, 
as  he  gave  his  name  to  the  Ogygian  gate,  of  Thebes,  the 
Ogygian  city.  But  it  must  be  observed  that  all  this  does  not 
In  the  slightest  degree  connect  Ogyges  with  tlie  Eleusinian 
religion:  for  the  Eleusinians  themselves,  though,  with  a  licen- 
tiousness of  fiction  which  even  Pausanius  cannot  tolerate 
(l.  38.  7.),  they  made  their  hero  I'^leusis  a  son  of  Ogj-ges, 
still  did  not  ascribe  any  share  in  the  foundation  of  their 
mysteries  either  to  Eleusis  or  his  father;  and  if  we  inquire 
n1)out  the  motive  which   suggested  thi^  fiction   to  themi,  none 


904 


OgygM- 


certainly  appear^  more  probable  than  the  wUIi  to  exalt  tli< 
Bnti(|uity  of  their  city  by  ascribing  its  origin  to  the  son  of  the 
first  king  of  Attica.  Hut  neither  does  tlie  fact,  if  assunied, 
that  the  Eleusinian  religion  travelled  out  of  IJnwtia  into 
Attica,  raise  no  much  as  a  shade  of  reasonable  suspicion  that 
any  particular  king,  either  of  all  Dccotia  or  of  Thebes,  was 
the  author  of  the  religion,  or  derived  his  name  from  its  riles. 
If  Ogygea  was  only  king  of  Thebes,  he  would  seem  to  be 
even  positively  excluded  from  all  share  in  them :  for  their 
Thracian  founders  are  not  represented  as  having  inliabited 
Thebes,  nor  is  Ogyges  connected  with  the  Boeotian  Kleusis, 
though  if  he  had  been,  this  would  nut  bring  him  into  any 
relation  with  the  rites  of  Ceres,  which  are  nowhere  as  far  n« 
1  remember  said  to  have  been  celebrated  there.  The  allusion 
which  Kuripides»  in  the  passage  quoted  by  J.  K.  from  the 
Phoenissa;,  (Jg*,  appears  to  make  to  tJie  worship  of  Ceires  at 
Thebes,  if  that  was  the  poet*s  meaning,  does  nut  bear  upon 
the  present  (juesiion,  since  it  is  not  accompanied  by  any  men- 
tion of  Ogygt's.  The  ca.se  wuuUl  indeed  be  different  if  Ogyges 
liad  ever  been  representtnl  as  the  father  of  Proserpine ;  but 
though  Mfxt^i^'iKH  is  a  title  given  to  that  goddess  in  an  Orphic 
hymn,  and  though  Panyasis  sang  of  Trerailus  that  be  married 
Nwjud»r;»'  ilyuytriv  tjv  ilpa^icui/f  KnXeovat  ^ipfMjt  ew  apyvpt.tp^ 
■KOTanio  irafta  i'.tvtjeyTi  (Steph.  Byz.  Tce/iiXi;),  this  doea  not 
seem  to  establish  an  identity  or  even  an  affinity  between  the 
Lycian  river-nymph  and  the  daughter  of  Ceres,  nor.to  connect 
the  Theban  Ogyges  with  either  of  them.  The  digresaion 
therefore  in  which  J.  K.  proceeds  to  compare  the  name  of 
Ogj'ges  with  that  of  Or[}heus,  and  other  founders  of  mystic  rites, 
though  it  contains  a  number  of  ingenious  combinations,  is  one 
into  which  we  cannot  accompany  him,  because  we  have  not 
yet  found  any  point  to  start  from  as  the  ground  of  the  com- 
parison. We  still  want  Bome  one  piece  of  authentic  evidence 
to  warrant  the  conjecture,  that  Ogyges  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  Eleusinian  mysteries,  for  which  at  present  we  cannot 
discover  any  kind  of  foundation. 

The  question  then  :  how  Ogyges  ciune  by  his  place  in  the 
list  of  the  Attic  kings,  requires  a  different  answer.  That 
which  we  are  about  to  propose  or  rather  to  defend  has  one  ad- 
vantage over  ihe  hx-polhcBis  just  examined,  in  setting  out  from 


Ogyges. 


055 


certain  ncknoulcdgeil  premises.     We  begin  by  in<|Liring  what 
il  is  tliut   Ogyges  is  renownetl  for  in    the  mythical    story  of 
Attica.     The  great  event   with   wliich  his  name   is  there  con- 
nected  is    ihc   most  oncient   deluge,    long    preceding    thnt  of 
Deucalion,  and   placed   bv  those  chronologcrs  who  contended 
that   the    most    ancient  epoclis    in    Greek    history    were    later 
than  Moses,  at  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  Israelites  out 
of   Kgypt :  some  Christian    writers,    who    adopted    the  state- 
ment of  Theopompiis  that  the  Athenians  were  an   Egyptian 
colony,  saw   in    the    Attic   deluge  a  visitation,  by  which  the 
|)eople   of  Attica   suffered   for   the   flins   of  their   kinfinicn  in 
Egypt   (Syncell.  i.  p.  12I.  Honn.)     With  the  nature,  causes, 
and  extent  of  this  calamity  however  we  have  here  no  concern  ; 
there  are  only  two  |x>ints    which    we   have  to   observe  in  it. 
In  the  first  place  this  ancient  flood  seems   to  belong  »s  much 
to  Attica  as  to  Boeotia,  and  there  is  no  need  for  the  hypothesis 
that  it  wa$  strictly  speaking  confined  to  the  Bceotian  plains, 
but    compelled    their  inhabitants  to  take  refuge  in  the  Attic 
highlands.     In  the   next   place,   as  indeed   follows   fn)in    the 
preceding  remark,   Ogyges  in  both  countries  U  one  and  the 
same    person:   lie  is    very  con-ectly   described   as    an   ancient 
kiug  of  Attica,  who  gave  his  name  to  the  Ogygian   gate  at 
Thebes,  (Ktym.   AI.    Eudoc.)      And  this  again  ought  not  to 
teai))t  us  to  undertake  accurately  to  de6ne   the  extent  of  his 
dominions.      It  is  not  the  land,  hut  the  water  which  covered 
it    in    his    time   that   has  made   him   known   tu  us.     Still  we 
must  not  suppress  a  fact  which  is  recorded  of  his  reign,  and 
which   alfords    more    countenance   to  J.    K's   hypothesis  than 
some   which  he  has  produced    for    that  pur|>ose.     According 
to  some  accounts  Ogyges  himself  founded  Kleusis.     (Syncell. 
p.  liy,  Bonn.)     We  have  however  already  stated  the  reasons 
which  ]>revent  us   from  laying  any  stress  on  this  statement, 
which  we  conceive  was  only  meant  to  enhance  the  glory  of 
Eleusis,  and  not    to  unfold    anything   as  to  the  character  of 
Ogyges.      At  the  same  time  il  is  jiroper  to  remark,  for  the 
Kakc  of  those  persons  who  take  an  interest  in  this  portion  of 
ancient  history,  and  who  may  bo  perj)lexed  by  the  tllscrepancy 
of  traditions  relating  to  it,  that   the  account    which   makes 
Ogyge*  founder   of  Eleii^i^  is  perfectly  consistent  with   that 
mentioned  by  PauMtnia^.     The  king  himself  moy  have  founded 


656 


Og9ge9. 


the  tnwiif  aiul  have  named  it  aftur  the  prince.  For  the  pre- 
sent however  wc  are  pruceeding  uii  a  difFcrent  assumption  : 
and  wliile  we  wait  for  those  criteria  wliich  may  perhaps  at 
some  future  lime  ascerUtin  the  historical  reality  of  Ogygcs, 
we  venture  to  treat  him  as  a  mere  creature  of  the  imagination. 

[and  inquire  into  the  process  by  which  he  acquired  his  name. 

flf  we  arc  not  mistaken  in  our  view  of  his  character,  his  name 
must  have  been  derived  not  from  any  religious  rites  by  which^ 
either  Thebes  or  Eleusin  were  afterwards  distinguished,  but 
from  the  great  convulsion  which  marked  his  reign.  The  pro*| 
position  implied  in  his  name  is  nut,  as  it  would  be  on  J.  IPs 
hypothesis^  that  tlie  F.leusinian  mysteries  were  established 
from  time  immemorial  in  Attica:  this  would  contradict  the 
current  legend  without  anv  adequate  cause:  it  is,  that  the 
waters  once  covered  the  face  of  Attica,  which  at  length  emerged 

^from  them  and  became  a  habitable  region.  If  this  is  what 
the  name  of  ''gvges  imports,  its  signification  can  be  no  other 
than  that  of  man  of  the  flood-,  and  all  that  we  have  to  consider 
is,  whether  its  etymology  or  its  affinities  justify  us  in  affixing 
this  sense  to  it.  And  here  it  appears  to  us  that  without 
appealing  to  any  doubtful   text,  we  can  shew  that  it  suggest! 

rOiis  meaning  quite  as  naturally  as  that  of  darkness:  and  that 
if  wc  deny  the  claim  of  Ogygcs  to  any  participation  in  the 
gloomy  rites  in  which  J.  K.  has  initiated  him,  we  make  hini 
ample  amends  by  intnxlucing  him  into  a  family  of  the  highest 
antiquity,  tl»e  memliers  of  which  arc  all  more  or  lc«6  connected 
with  the  humid  element. 

I  have  already  intimated  that  it  is  not  a  new  thought  ■ 
which  I  am  here  suggesting:  on  the  contrary  it  may  be  coi»- 
sidered  as  the  received  opinion,  and  all  that  T  have  to  do  ia 
lo  explain  and  illustrate  it,  and  to  shew  that  it  is  in  perfect 
harmony  with  all  those  facts  and  allusions  which  led  J.  K.  to 
his  hypothesis.  The  same  view  is  adopted  by  Mr  Keightley 
in  his  Mtfthohfi^,  p.  Udlh  where  he  observes  that  Ogyges  is 
a  perHUJiiJication  of  water.  If  tlie  plan  of  liis  excellent  work 
had  required  or  permitted  him  to  dwell  on  this  subject  he 
would  have  discussed  it  in  a  manner  which  would  have  ren- 
dered tlie  following  remarks  superfluous.  Hut  in  another 
passage  p.  2dO.  he  has  jHiinted  out  the  great  family  to  which 
the  name   of   Ogyges   belongs  and  has  mentioned  some  of  its 


Ogyges. 


657 


members,  at  the  same  time  that  he  gives  the  true  explanation 
of  the  name  of  Calypso's  island.  He  observes  in  a  note:  "■  Ca^ 
Ivpso  signifies  the  concealed.  Ogygia  is  a  word  of  the  same 
family  with   Occanus  or  Ogcnius,  Ogygcs,  .'Egeenn   Achclous, 

acquti  &c all  relating  to  tcater.'^     AVith  regard  to  the  form 

of  the  name  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe  that  aceording  to  a 
conjecture  of  Buttmann's,  the  truth  of  which  can  scarcely  be 
doubted,  Ogyges  is  only  a  reduplication  of  the  radical  syllable 
whicli  we  find  with  slight  variationa  in  all  the  abovemcn- 
tiuned  names.  Buttniunn  (Alythology  i.  20(>.)  compares  eTv- 
ftoi,  UTrjTvfioi'  ovtjfii  ovivt]txt.  oTTTw,  OTTiTTTfyttJ.  aTaXo9,  an- 
ra'XXbf.  These  instances  arc  certainly  sufficient  to  remove 
all  objections  that  can  be  made  on  this  score  to  the  identity  of 
Ogyges  and  Oceanus  or  Ogen,  as  the  name  is  spelt  in  Hesy- 
chius :  'Uyfjf,  'ihceavoi.  In  name  Ogyges  appruaclies  even 
still  nearer  to  the  Carian  gixl  Ogoa,  and,  if  the  former  is  no 
other  than  Ocean,  they  seem  also  to  agree  in  nature.  For 
Ogoa  mufit  have  been  a  marine  God,  as  we  learn  from  Pau- 
sanius  (viii.  10.  4.)  that  there  was  a  salt  spring  in  his  temple 
at  Mylasa,  as  in  the  Erechtheuni  at  Athens,  and  in  the  temple 
of  PoMidon  at  Mantinea.  It  doea  not  therefore  seem  neces- 
sary ttf  suppose  with  J.  K.  that  '*  a  confusion  of  Ogyges  with 
the  Jupiter  Ogoa  of  the  Carians  produced  the  genealogy  men- 
tioned by  Stcph.  ByK.  Qyvyia  by  which  lie  was  made  the  son 
of  Termera.'^  The  genealogy  may  be  explained  without  Bepo- 
rating  the  two  persons  more  widely  than  the  Attic  Ogyges, 
who  reigns  at  the  flood,  from  the  god  Ocean.  In  Asia  as  in 
Greece  the  king  of  the  gods,  as  Ogyges  is  called  by  the 
Scholiast  in  Hesiod  quoted  by  Buttmanu,  became  king  of 
the  land.  As  such  in  Lycia  he  might  be  colled  a  son  of  Ter- 
mera,  which  amounts  to  little  more  than  the  title  of  avrayOtvp 
in  Attica.  The  Carian  Ogoa  and  the  Lycian  Ogyges  natu- 
rally remind  us  of  the  Lydiau  Gyges  whom  J.  K.  has  enlisted 
in  the  service  of  his  hypothesis.  His  name  and  story  raise 
many  difficult  questions:  but  on  the  whole  he  seems  as  likely 
to  prove  a  serviceable  ally  to  the  liquid  as  to  the  mystic  race. 
Unfortunately  it  is  not  absolutely  certain  that  he  is  the  |)er!«>n 
of  whon>  I'lato  relates  the  marvellous  legend  in  the  Eepublio 
p.  359-  But  if  the  resemblance  bctMeen  this  and  the  story 
in  Herodotus  should  seem  to  justify  us,  in  opposition  to  the 


efitt 


Ogyges. 


.reading  of  the  manuscripts,  in  assigning  the  name  of  Ogyge^ 
to  the  fortunate  sliephorii   who  descended   into  llie   bosom  of 

I  the  eurth  when  it  had  been  reft  by  rain  and  earthquake,  and 
there  found  the  ma^c  ring  which  rendered  him  invisible  at 
pleasure,  we  perceive  nothing  in  all  tliis  that  might  not  well 

fh&ve  happened  to  OgygeB  himself.  For  not  only  do  the 
flotid  and  the  earthquake  properly  belong  to  him;   the  powe 

'of  becoming  invisible  is  also  an  essenti»l  attribute  of  marine 
deitiea:  and  the  hero  of  the  legend  only  possesBes  this  Pro- 
tean quality,  and  is  not  wrapt  in  perpetual  darkness. 

Here  however  it  may  be  proper  tn  anticipate  an  objection 
which  may  possibly  suggest  itself  to  »ome  readers,  who  arc 
conversant  with  Homer,  or  who  have  read  Mr  Keightley'i 
interesting  chapter  on  Mythic  cosmology.  Homer  speaks 
Ocean  as  a  river  and  according  to  the  view  which  Mr  Keightley 
has  adopted  (see  his  Mythology  p.  :i5.)  it  was  only  by  laterj 
poets  that  its  waters  were  dilated  into  a  sea.  The  writer 
however  who  have  taken  the  greatest  pains  tn  explain  Homer^a 
cosmology  have  left  it  very  uncertain  how  far  his  ideas  were 
precisely  fixed  on  this  subject.  He  undoubtedly  imagined 
the  water  on  the  edge  of  the  earth  to  flow  round  in  a  perennial 
current'  but  whether  it  was  in  any  other  sense  a  river,  or  sepa-. 
rated  by  a  bank  from  the  inner  sea,  is  not  clear.  Nor  does  it' 
9eem  certain  that  Homer  conceived  the  water  of  Ocean  to  be 
iueapable  of  mingling  with  any  other  streams  or  floods.  For 
tliis  is  too  much  to  infer  from  the  description  of  the  Titoresius, 
which  because  it  is  a  branch  of  the  Styx,  itself  a  part  of  Ocean, 
floats  like  oil  on  the  surface  of  the  Pcneus  (Iliad  ii.  7^4-)  I 
find  no  other  proof  of  the  jiroposition  given  in  V%}eleker^s 
excellent  work  {Hmneruche  Geographic).  It  seems  probable 
that  Ca]ypsu*s  island  was  called  Ogygia  because,  though  not 
in  the  current,  it  lay  in  the  Ocean,  and  such  also  ap[x>ars  to 
have  been  the  meaning  of  the  epithet  applied  to  the  mountain 
in  Apollodorus.  But  however  this  may  be  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  in   the   imagination    of  the    Greeks,   even    before 


,       ■  The  reading  tw  rt>yi)  isrecognUed  by  EudocUp.  99.    In  cotuideriog  th«  chA« 

r>«cr  of  (J'7ge»  we  must  not  forget  the  peiennul  Ukf  in  Herodotua  i.  MS Xlftirj  tiIh 

Xryowri  Aly^ol  tifli-a«p  tJvnr  vaXrl-rat  ii  aWtf   ri>^rtii/,  nor  th»t  y^tv  innni  %  wmtt* 
fowl. 


609 


Homer,  all  parts  of  the  world  of  waters  were  intimately  con- 
nected together.  From  his  inexhaustible  fountain  father 
Ocean  fed  the  salt  seas,  and  the  fresh  rivers:  his  >!rramR 
trickled  through  subterraneous  veins,  and  gushed  out  from 
the  side  of  distant  hills.  Perhaps  too  hi.s  floods  spread  under 
the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  made  it  quake  with  their 
surges.  (II.  XXI.  19*»)  Hence  both  Calypso  and  Praxidice, 
though  not  Proserpine,  are  Ogygiun  nymphs,  and  we  may  add 
that  when  Eleusis  was  called  by  some  the  son  of  Ogygea, 
while  others  made  him  to  be  the  son  of  Daira,  this  was  only 
a  difference  of  one  stfp  in  the  same  genealogy,  fince  Daira^  us 
Pausanias  informs  us  (r.  38.  ".),  was  herself  the  daughter  of" 
Ocean  u  a. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  transition  from 
this  notion  of  the  epithet  Ogyglan  with  which  it  is  applied  to 
tlie  islnnd  and  the  mountain,  to  thnt  of  ancienf,  is  at  least  as  - 
simple  and  nntiiml  as  tliat  which  J.  K.  suggests.  Ogygian 
means  that  which  is  as  old  as  the  flood,  the  beginning  of 
things.     Still    there    may    be   some   doubt   about    the  precise 

[reference  of  the  epithet  in  the  passages  cited  by  J.  K.  and 
In    some   others.     But   it    seems  to  be  applied  by  Pindar   to 

[the  mountains  of  Phlius  in  a  sense  very  similar  to  that 
which   must   he   given    to   it   in  the   line    of    Dinnysius   5i3y 

'wyuyltj  Te  Racrov,   Arjuijre^wv   curri; :    where  it  is  to  be  hoped 

I  the  mention  of  Ceres  will  not  seduce  any  one  to  think  of  the 
Kleusinian  mysterie8^  It  denotes  a  sent  of  ancient  wealth 
and  renown,  as  in  the  line  of  the  Philoctetes  (14S),  where  it 
is  applied  to  the  hereditary  dominion  of  Neoptolemus  (KpaTov 
ur/vytov).  It  may  Beem  less  clear  why  the  poet  gives  the 
same  epithet  to  the  river  I,adon  (H5).  This  might  np[}ear 
to  be  an  application  immediately  derived  from  the  primitive 
meaning  of  the  word,  rather  than  from  the  myth  by  which 
Eustathius  explains  it:  that  Daphne,  the  first  mortal,  sprang 
from  I*adon  and  Earth.  But  until  we  have  ascertained  that 
Dionysius  never  used  the  word  as  an  unmeaning  ornament, 
it  will  not  be  safe  to  speculate  ou  this  point. 


s  Notvith»taiiding  the  remark  in  Eudocia :   J(  'ipX'i^  V^  "W'  ^)f^*rT^av  /icyaXwt 
dier^v,  iid  -rd  *iiMfut¥  riff  Wvow  kdl  «S«afnrMr. 

Vol..  II.  No.  6  4P 


L 


660  Ogygea. 

If  these  conjectures  are  well  founded,  the  name  of  Ogjges 
will  suggest  the  notion  of  a  physical  event,  which,  by  a  pro- 
cess familiar  to  the  human  mind  in  all  countries,  has  been 
transformed  into  a  historical  one.  What  we  gain  from  the 
name  however  is  not  the  knowledge  of  the  fact,  but  merely 
of  the  belief  which  anciently  prevailed  about  it.  How  this 
arose  is  a  different  question,  which  admits  of  many  answers. 
On  the  other  hand  in  attempting  to  exclude  Ogyges  from 
that  class  of  persons  in  which  J.  K.  has  numbered  him,  we 
do  not  deny  its  existence,  though  the  claim  of  each  individual 
to  be  admitted  into  it  must  be  tried  on  its  own  grounds. 
The  proposition  that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  Greek  mytho- 
logy, as  it  would  appear  from  J.  K^s  hypotheses,  was  stamped 
with  a  mystic  and  sacerdotal  character,  is  one  that  requires 
to  be  carefully  examined  before  it  is  embraced.  On  this  sub- 
ject the  reader  will  find  some  interesting  remarks  by  Mr 
Eeightley,  p.  14S,  who  in  a  short  compass  exhibits  the  main 
features  of  the  antimystical  view  of  the  question.  We  regret 
that  he  has  there  assumed  as  an  admitted  fact  an  assertion  of 
Lobeck^s,  which,  if  we  remember  right,  has  been  ctnrected 
by  Mueller,  and  which  rests  only  on  a  misapprehension  of 
the  words  of  Herodotus,  i.  37 :  that  Eleusis  and  Athens  were 
independent  of  each  other  till  the  time  of  Solon.  But  this  is 
one  of  the  few  blemishes  which  we  hope  will  speedily  disappear 
in  a  second  edition  of  his  work. 


C.T. 


NIEBUHR  ON   THE   DISTINCTION    BETWEEN 
ANNALS   AND   HISTORY. 

(FrOV  the    RHKINIflCHSi    MuSEVM.) 


It  is  well  known  that  the  definition  of  these  two  titles 
of  historical  works  is  one  of  the  lexicographical  problems 
which  Gellius  (v.  I8.)  haa  attempted  to  solve  with  more 
learning  than  thought.  He  may  have  been  led  to  it  by 
dipping  in  Verrius  Flaccus,  yet  it  is  certainly  no  excess  of 
refinement  to  conjecture  that  the  inducement  to  it  was  sup- 
plied by  the  occurrences  of  his  own  day.  From  the  manner 
in  which  he  speaks  of  Fronto  (xix.  6.)  we  are  led  to  presume 
that  he  was  no  longer  living  when  bis  warmhearted  pupil  set 
about  expanding  and  trimming  up  his  extracts  into  his  amusing 
cRsays.  If  so,  Lucius  Verus  had  already  returned  from  the 
Parthian  war :  consequently  the  flood  of  historical  works  which 
that  war  occasioned  had  already  burst  forth.  It  is  impossible 
that  Latin  writers  should  nut  have  had  their  full  share  in 
them :  and  of  these  some  may  have  given  the  title  of  AnnaU^ 
others  tliat  of  Hititorieit^  to  their  works,  witliout  any  cause 
known  either  to  tlicmselves  or  to  their  readers.  But  neither 
do  I  see  any  reason  for  doubting  that  Gellius  had  the  writings 
of  Tacitus  in  his  eye :  for  as  to  his  making  no  ([uotations  from 
them,  this  resulted  from  the  nature  and  contents  of  tiie  Noctea 
AttukB,  It  is  possible  that  the  two  works  of  Xacitus  which 
boar  the  abovenientionetl  titles  may  have  occasioned  the  inquiry: 
what  the  distinction  was  which  they  were  meant  to  denote ; 
and  it  followed  from  the  nature  of  his  studies,  tlut  he  searched 
for  the  opinions  of  others  on  the  words,  without  investigating 
the  meaning  of  Tacitus. 


66S 


Niebuhr  on  t/te  DiathicHvn 


Since  the  revival  of  literature  this  inquiry  has  often 
renewed,  and  the  answers  projwsed  have  generally  been  drawn 
from  the  remarks  of  Gellius  coupled  with  an  opinion  dt;livered 
with  a  very  authnritntivc  air,  in  Sorvius  (lui  .-En.  i.  373).  AU 
this  is  too  well  known  nnd  too  ubvitms  to  lie  worth  transcribin)^: 
but  it  may  not  be  superfluouit  lo  shew  why  it  is  nut  satis- 
factory. 

We  shall  leave  wholly  out  of  the  question  the  observation 
of  Sempronius  Asellio :  that  he  uimed  at  something  higher  in 
his  memoirs  tlian  the  Annal»,  which  related  nothing  but  wars 
and  triumphs,  and  were  ignorant  of  the  causefi  of  events,  and 
silent  about  the  policy  of  the  government  and  the  objects  of 
the  laws.  It  is  true  that  the  pontifical  Annals  could  not  go 
beyond  this,  nor  could  the  sage  Coruncanius  himself  have 
written  otherwise:  for  who  would  have  presumed,  in  tables 
exposed  to  public  view,  to  pronounce  judgomeut  on  the  .senate 
or  the  tribunes,  and  to  weigh  the  laudableuess  and  wisdom 
of  their  proceedings?  But  this  jejgneness  of  the  ancient 
annals  is  no  reason  for  <|uestioning  the  propriety  of  assigning 
the  same  title  to  those  of  Tacitus,  notwithstanding  the  det-p 
views  they  contain. 

We  should  rather  say  that,  as  Gellius  himself  very  clearly 
perceived,  every  narrative  o\'  events  digested  according  to  years 
may  admit  of  this  title  in  the  larger  sense:  only  it  does  not 
follow  from  this  that  a  history  like  that  of  Tacitus  should 
not  observe  the  same  arrangement,  any  more  than  that  a  nar- 
rative so  distributed  necessarily  belongs  in  a  peculiar  sense 
to  the  class  of  annals,  or  that  it  always  may  be  so  named  with- 
out doing  violence  to  one\**  sense  of  pn>pricty  in  language. 
Ctcsar^a  Commentaries  are  not  Annals,  though  the  books  and 
the  years  correspond  to  each  other. 

From  the  earliest  times  there  have  been  two  ways  of 
transmitting  the  knowledge  of  events.  In  the  one  it  is  done 
progrcssivclv,  by  recording  what  lakes  place  under  the  y<?«r5 
in  which  it  occurred :  unconnectediv,  without  any  combination 
with  the  past  or  any  preparation  for  the  future:  by  noting 
all  that  engages  attention  for  the  present,  -uithout  paying  any 
regard  to  its  nature,  or  considering  how  soon  it  may  become 
utterly  immaterial.  The  other  way  is  by  comprehensive  nar- 
ratives, the  subject  of  which  is  entire  and  complete :   these  do 


b^ween  AnnaU  and  History. 


663 


not  need  any  limitation  of  time,  at  least  for  the  details,  and 
reject  it  whenever  it  interferes  with  the  main  design  :  they 
exclude  everything  that  is  c-onnectcd  with  their  subject  by  no 
other  link  than  unity  of  time;  but  as  they  embrace  everything 
that  is  essentially  germane  to  the  matter,  mj  they  may  be  em- 
bellished with  episodes,  for  which  there  is  no  room  in  the 
records  of  the  other  class.  The  latter  cuntiiie  themselves  to 
the  bare  mentiun  uf  the  names  of  persons,  nations,  and  cities, 
because  the  things  they  treat  of  are  as  familiar  to  countrymen 
and  contemporaries  for  whose  sake  alone  they  are  recorded, 
as  to  the  authors  themselves:  but  Narratives  describe  and 
explain,  in  order  to  present  the  distant,  the  past,  and  the 
unknown,  clearly  and  vividly  to  the  hearer's  imagination. 

Records  such  as  those  above  described,  arc  annals  or 
chronicles:  for  narratives  ufiage  has  not  stamped  any  such 
precise  terra,  but  I  will  venture  to  appropriate  the  name  of 
bistories  to  them.     It  is  only  at  the  outset  that  the  two  kinds 

L«re  distinctly  opposed  to  one  another:   they  are  tlien  separated 
•y  a  great  waste :   no  sooner  however  does  literature  begin  to 
make  progress,  than  cultivation  is  applied  on  both  sides,  and 

^advances,  until  the  confines  of  the  two  provinces  become  am- 
biguou.s.  Chronicles  sometimes  rise  up  to  an  animated  history, 
ftnd  even  unfold  and  illustrate  themselves  in  episodes;  though 
hey  carefully  limit  every  narration  within  the  circle  of  a  year, 

[and  throw  together  contemporaneous  occurrences,  however 
heterogeneous,  in  motley  disorder.  Ou  the  other  hand  a  his- 
tory, fully  worthy  of  the  name,  like  that  of  Thucydidcs  or 
Polybius,  may  observe  the  annual  periods  very  exactly.  But 
it  excludes  whatever  in  its  nature  is  alien  to  the  subject,  mere 
records,  and  all  that  is  interesting  oidy  to  contemporaries,  no 
less  necessarily  than  an  epic  poem. 

Everywhere  it  begins  as  u  species  of  epic  poem,  and  then 
its  province  lies  in  the  remote  past.  But  in  time  the  deeds 
of  an  early  geueration  grow  foreign  to  their  reHned  and  altered 
posterity,  who  deem  themselves  a  sujwrior  race:  while  the 
present,  as  it  is  more  clearly  surveye*!,  acquires  greater  im- 
portance in  their  eyes,  than  that  of  their  forefathers  had  in 
their& :  it  then  invites  to  descriptions  intended  for  distant 
regions  and  afteragea.  It  is  long  ere  a  man  ari&es  who  con- 
templates great  events  with  the  purpose  of  writing  a  history  of 


664 


NKinihr  vn  the  Distinction 


ihem  when  the  movement  lias  come  to  an  end.  A  narratlM~ 
from  which  no  one  demands  minute  fidelity,  which  ti^ats  the 
traditional  materials  of  a  history  with  perfect  freedom,  like 
Rcenes  in  a  painting,  may  be  framed  with  as  little  art  &b  a 
poem  formed  out  of  a  mythological  dream;  and  on  the  other 
hand  its  opposite,  the  genuine  and  accurate  reflex  of  a  period 
which  the  writer  has  lived  through  with  thoughtful  attention, 
is  no  less  complete  and  copious.  But  if  we  ever  make  an 
attempt  to  relate  the  events  of  the  times  of  our  fathers  and 
grandfathers,  with  !«crupulous  fidelity  and  minuteness,  we  find 
tile  colours  full,  the  outlines  become  unsteady :  wc  miss  that 
firm  conviction  which  guides  the  hand  of  one  who  is  describing 
what  he  has  witnessed,  and  which,  even  when  it  is  in  error, 
produces  something  which  hesitating  indecision  can  never  reajch. 
Not  that  this  is  unattainable  for  one  who,  with  the  aid  of  an 
ample  experience?,  transports  himself  by  reflexion  into  the  fmst : 
but  it  required  a  greater  effort  to  write  the  Juguriha  than  the 
Catiline. 

A  dim  notion  of  this  condition,  without  which  a  history 
cannot  live  and  breathe,  was  the  fouudation  of  the  definition  in 
Servius,  according  to  which  history  is  a  narrative  of  coQteni>- 
purary  events :  only  it  is  a  false  contrast  that  is  drawn  from 
it,  when  it  is  said  that  annals  relate  the  events  of  earlier  time«, 
and  that  Livy^s  work  consisted  of  annals  and  history.  Most 
writers  perhaps  have  been  satisfied  with  this  explnnatiun : 
among  the  rest  Grono\'iu8  declares  himself  hi;  and  wen 
Grotius  must  have  held  it  to  be  the  only  right  one.  Fur 
he  divides  his  history  of  the  Netherlands  into  Annals  and 
History,  and  begins  the  latter  from  the  time  of  his  own  birth  : 
in  the  Annals  he  often  does  not  distinguish  the  years  at  all, 
still  less  does  he  mention  them  in  the  narrative,  so  that  if  the 
numbers  were  not  annexed  in  the  margin,  the  reader  would  not 
know  the  dates :  as  to  the  other  peculiar  characteristics  of  this 
kind  of  narrative,  which  Tacitus  observes,  we  find  no  trace  of 
them  in  him  :  the  unity  of  the  commotion  and  insurrection  in 
the  Netherlands  excludes  everything  beside. 

It  is  probable  that  those  who  have  defended  the  definition 
in  Servius,  have  interpreted  it  in  general  according  to  the 
division  hero  adopted  by  Grotius:  and  this  great  man  would 
uerlainty  not  have  suHered  authority  to  prescribe  to  him  in  the 


between  Jnhais  anti  History. 


ms 


arrangement  of  his  excellent  work,  unless  hh  clear  understand- 
ing had  confirmed  the  correctness  of  this  view.  And  in  truth 
the  time  of  independent  observation  and  perception  begins  with 
our  riper  youth:  childhood  is  not  only  unable  to  think  for 
itself,  but  scarcely  heeds  even  a  general  calamity,  and  quickly 
forgets  it.  But  I  conceive  that  with  everyone  there  is  an 
essential  difference  between  public  events  which  a  man  recol- 
lects, thuugli  only  as  Ju  a  dream,  to  have  heard  of  at  the  time 
they  occurred,  and  those  which  preceded  his  birth  ;  liie  former 
we  think  of  with  reference  to  ourselves,  the  Utter  are  foreign 
to  us:  the  epoch  and  duration  of  the  former  wc  mcastirc  by 
our  own  life:  the  latter  belong  to  a  peritxl  for  which  our 
imas^ination  has  no  scale.  Thus  in  the  former  case,  life  and 
definiteness  are  imparted  to  all  that  we  hear  or  read  on 
the  subject :  above  all  with  respect  to  the  events  of  our 
boyhood,  when  every  man,  who  is  formed  by  nature  to  com- 
prehend the  occurrences  of  history,  passionately  embraces  or 
loatites  things  which,  as  apprehendetl  by  a  child,  were  indeed 
mere  names:  though  it  i^  such  names  that  exercise  a  magic 
power,  from  which  nothing  but  mature  judgement  can  secure 
us. 

Still  the  explanation  is  good  for  nothing  as  a  general  de- 
finition. For  in  what  class  sliould  we  reckon  Saltust's  Ju- 
gurtha,  which  in  its  construction  is  studiously  opjiosed  to  the 
annalistic  form  ?  and  in  what  the  greater  part  at  least  of  the 
history  of  Herodotus,  even  though  a  portion  might  be  excepted, 
from  the  probability  that  he  was  born  at  the  time  of  the  expe- 
dition of  Xerxes.  On  the  other  hand,  the  pontifical  annals 
drawn  up  year  by  year,  and  all  contemporary  chronicles,  are 
by  this  deHnition  converted  into  histories. 

Hod  the  last  bwtks  of  the  Histories  of  Tacitus,  those  in 
fvhich  he  described  Domitian''s  tyranny,  come  down  to  us, 
it  would  have  been  clear  how  he  treated  two  periods  of  similar 
character,  one  in  the  Annals,  the  other  In  the  Histories:  the 
period  contained  in  the  books  preserved  of  tl>e  latter  work, 
admits  of  no  comparison  with  that  which  is  the  subject  <^ 
the  Annals. 

The  Histories  were  the  story  of  the  Flavian  line:  they 

begin,  not  with  the  fall  of  Nero,  but  with  the  mutiny  of  the 

Lkgionit  of  Germany,  which  opened  the  series  of  evwts  that 


666 


Niebuhr  on  the  DUtincHon 


led  Vespasian  to  declare  himself.  Here  therefore  is  on  epic 
unity:  and  it  was  a  history  devoid  perhaps  of  great  men, 
but  in  its  early  part  full  uf  mighty  events,  which  made  a 
deep  imprfssion  on  the  youthfid  soul  of  Tacitus.  A  youn|t 
man  of  his  character  was  assuredly  an  ardent  partisan  of  Ves- 
pasian, so  long  88  the  object  was  to  extirpate  the  monsters 
of  the  court  of  Nero,  and  to  remove  a  wretch  like  VitelHus; 
and  in  the  dreary  reality  of  the  government  finally  ct^tablished, 
he  no  doubt  still  clearly  perceived  that  there  wan  re&son  to 
thank  heaven  for  deliverance  from  the  misery  of  the  preceding 
period ;  for  though  Domitian  at  last  exercised  a  like  tyranny, 
still  the  age  was  somewhat  improved:  it  had  ttobered  itself 
from  the  drunkcnncRs  of  crime.  For  this  narrative  Tacitus 
needetl  neither  to  look  to  theories  for  a  form,  nor  to  seek  long 
for  a  name:  both  presented  themselveii  spontaneously* 

When  Ills  work  was  completed,  he  may  perhajis  liave  felt 
avoid,  and  have  desired  to  produce  another;  and  the  people 
of  that  polite  circle  in  the  great  world,  which  the  letter*  of 
the  younger  Pliny  place  distinctly  before  our  eyes,  without 
inspiring  us  with  any  wish  for  their  nt^quaintance,  would  never 
cease  to  press  and  inlrent  the  great  man  who  lived  among  them* 
not  to  be  idle,  and  to  write  another  historv.  As  long  as 
Trajan  lived  he  could  not  wish  to  relate  that  which  he  had 
reserved  for  his  old  age:  he  decided  on  that  of  the  half 
century  from  the  death  of  Augustus  to  the  beginning  of  his 
History. 

If  he  had  not  completed  the  latter  he  would  perhaps  not 
have  separated  it  any  more  than  JAvy  from  the  narrative  of 
the  earlier  period.  Dut  to  have  united  the  two,  the  beginning 
of  the  History  must  have  been  destroyed  or  altered ;  perhapti 
also  many  passages  in  the  body  of  the  work,  and  this  without 
adequate  cause  On  the  contrary,  the  form  in  which  chance 
occasioned  them  to  appear  as  two  distinct  works,  was  the  most 
appropriate. 

The  difficulties  which  embarrass  a  historical  narrative  of 
times  preceding  that  of  the  writer,  were  for  those  of  Tilieriiis 
really  insurmountable.  Tiberius  had  succeetled,  after  Ger- 
manicus  had  quitted  Germany,  in  reducing  the  world  to  a 
state  of  torpid  stillness,  and  in  overspreading  it  with  the 
silence   of  the  grave :   its  history  is  now  confined  to  himself 


wiween  Jfmm§  and  History. 


667 


and  liis  unfortunate  house,  to  the  destruction  of  the  victims 
of  his  tyrannyf  and  the  servitude  of  the  ^nate.  In  this 
dreary  silence  we  shudder,  and  speak  in  a  whisper:  all  is 
dark,  and  wrapt  in  myslerj',  doubtful  and  perplexing.  Was 
Germanicus  poisoned  ?  was  Piso  guilty  ?  what  urged  him  to 
his  mad  violence?  did  the  son  of  Tiberius  die  of  poison, 
Agrippina  by  the  stroke  of  an  assassin?  all  this  was  just  as 
uncertain  to  Tacitus  as  to  us. 

For  the  history  of  a  despot's  reign,  when  it  does  not 
fall  in  times  of  great  events,  where  his  perwinal  character  is 
of  little  moment,  biography  is  the  most  appropriate  form; 
and  to  this  Suetonius  and  his  followers  verc  led  by  tlic  na- 
ture of  the  case.  But  perhaps  Tacitus  could  not  overcome 
the  pain  of  degrading  the  histor)'  of  Rome,  in  form  as  well 
as  in  substance,  to  a  small  part  of  the  biography,  not  merely 
of  a  tyrant,  who,  though  he  had  degenerated  through  vice, 
was  designed  by  nature  for  great  and  salutary  ends,  and 
accomplished  not  a  few,  but  of  an  unfortunate  and  depraved 
idiot,  and  of  two  monsters.  It  is  also  possible  that  the  uni- 
form usage  of  his  predecessors,  who  seem  all  to  have  related 
the  history  of  this  period  in  the  form  of  annals  (t/mne«  an- 
natium-^  Hptores.,  to  wliom  are  only  opposed  the  memoirs 
of  •'  jounger  Agrippina,  Ann.  iv.  .W.);  this  form  may  have 
acquired  such  authority  as  the  one  best  fitted  to  the  period, 
that  even  the  free  mind  of  Tacitus  decided  without  scrupulous 
consideration  in  its  favour.  But  had  he  come  to  the  execution 
of  his  plan,  of  writing  the  history  of  Augustus  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Annals,  I  have  no  doubt  he  would  have  chosen 
the  form  of  biography  for  it.  The  passage  in  which  he  speaks 
of  bis  intention  evidently  implies  a  complete  work,  not  a  con- 
tinuntion  of  Livy's,  whose  last  books,  n  prixluclion  of  liis  old 
age,  had  rambled  into  inordinate  difTuseness:  and  still,  though 
what  his  generous  spirit  expressed,  and  what  it  kept  back, 
excited  the  displeasure  of  the  Kuler  himself,  he  had  not  ven- 
tured to  touch  on  the  most  important  points.  Tacitus  had 
hegun  as  a  historian  with  a  biography ;  he  would  then  have 
ended  with  one,  for  he  was  prol>ably  never  in  earnest  about 
his  history  of  Trajan. 

Now  no  one  who  reads  the  Annals  from  lieginning  to  end« 
can  fail  to  perceive  in  them  the  character  of  those  whirH 
Vol.  II.  No.  b*.  4Q 


66a 


Aiebuhr  on  the  Distinction 


originnlly  bore  this  name;   and  this  not  as  the  reKult  of  acci> 
dent,   but  most  carefully  preserved  ;    witli   no  more  tliffcrcnce 
than  between   a  Madonna  of  Cimubue  and  one  of   Raphael. 
Efu-Ji  yeur  is  kept   strictly  upari   from  the   rest*   ttu    tliat   the 
writer  expressly  declines  mentioning   oceurrenceM    which,    ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  would,  have  found  their 
proper  place  before  the  time  when  they  happened  (Ann.  iv.  71): 
the  course  of  event*  which  occupy  a  longer  period  ia  always 
interrupted  by  the  change  of  the  year.     In  the  compass  of  the 
year  the  most  heterogeneous  matters  are  recorded,  often  inci- 
dents of  no  moment,   though  etill  interesting  for  contempo- 
raries: many  which  a  history  of  the  Romans  and  the  £ni)>{re, 
if  it  did  not  entirely  exclude  them,  would  have  placed  in  an 
episode.     These  manifold  subjects  arc  put  side  by  side  without 
any  connexion :  he  rather  avoids  linking  them  together.     No 
less  deliberately  does  this  great  master  of  his  art  obscrre  the 
character  of  the  record^  mid  preserve  the  distinction  between  it 
and  a  narrative  which  exhibits  a  comprehensive  survey  of  its 
whole  field.     It  is   agreeably   to  this  character  that  he  give* 
only  a  [>arlial  account  uf  events ;  sometimes  omitting  what  the 
reader'^s  thoughts  may   supply,  sometimes,  to  avoid  prolixity, 
singling   out   detaclied    ports  of  that   wliich,   if  given   entire, 
would  have  taken  up  a  large  space.     So  much  the  clearer  light 
does  he  endeavour  to  throw  on   the  masses  which  he  selecU; 
this  part  of  the  Annals  is  like  St  Peter's  seen  under  the  illu- 
mination of  the  cross,  where  most  parts  uf  the  building  lie  in 
darkness,  and  are  invisible,  while  others  are  the  more  strongly 
delineated   by  the  shadows  which  they  bound:   the  history  is 
rather  recalled  to  our  thoughts  by  the  light  of  the  sun,  when 
it  falls  upon  the  same  building  through  the  great  window  of  Uie 
tribune,  and  shews  everything  in  broad  day.      It  is  true  that 
even  then  this  is  not  the  clearness  of  objects  seen  under  tike 
open   sky,  in  noontide  brightness:   as  history   is  always    lew 
vividly  coloured  than  a  present  reality,  or  the  remembrance  of 
It.     The  imperfection  and  hurry  of  the  narrative  in  this  work 
cannot  always  be   defended,   nor  can  it   be  denied  that  here 
Tacitus  has  sometimes  erred.     A  painful  effect,  like  that  of 
a  discord  unresolved,  is  prtutuced  by  his  dropping   tlic  pro- 
ceedings of  the  senate,    before   the  decree   on   the  power   of 
Tiberius  had  put  an  end  to  their  torment   (Ann.  1.  1*):  and 


< 


between  Annah  and  HUtory. 

the  campaigns  of  Gcrmanicus,  without  any  measure  of  time 
and  place,  float  by  us  like  a  dream.  In  general,  whatever 
censure  moy  with  any  justice  be  paRSC<l  upon  him,  affects  these 
books :  which  are  precisely  those  which  his  imitators  have  token 
for  their  mode).  The  Histories  and  the  detached  works  seem 
to  be  proof  against  all  objections. 

The  six  books,  beginning  with  the  eleventh,  are  in  the 
main  free  from  these  imperfections,  but  the  dmracter  of  Annals 
is  less  distinctly  preservetl  in  them :  if  I  may  pursue  the  pre- 
ceding comparison,  the  dawn  has  already  broken,  and  is  grow- 
ing brighter  and  l)righter,  so  that  the  part  which  would  have 
immediately  touched  upon  the  History',  must  have  been  in  fact 
homogeneous  with  it.  The  lost  books,  between  the  two  por- 
tions preserved  to  us,  undoubtedly  presented  a  transition  main- 
tained with  a  steady  hand. 

Now,  as  the  narrative  necessarily  unfolded  itself  more  and 
more  freely  as  it  approached  the  Histories,  it  is  an  immcaning 
error  to  add  the  title  of  xvii.  of  the  Annals  to  the  first  book 
of  the  Histories.  That  it  is  found  in  manuscripts  is  of  the  leas 
importance,  because,  according  to  Lipsius,  it  appears  there  as 
au  arrangement  introduced  by  nameless  hands  {secxoidum 
quosdam);  that  is,  by  some  sciolist  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
when  philology  was  quite  in  its  infancy.  There  is  much  better 
reason  for  conjecturing  that  the  Annals  contained  full  twenty 
books;  more  than  four  are  not  too  many  for  the  time  that  is 
wanting  down  to  the  commencement  of  the  History.  The 
occasion  whicli  has  led  many  to  adopt  that  absurd  title,  and 
which  induced  Qucrcngo,  citetl  by  Fabricius,  somewhat  more 
considerately,  to  make  the  Histories  begin  with  the  eighteentli 
book  of  the  Annals,  is  the  wellknown  passage  of  St  Jerome, 
who  states  the  number  of  the  books  from  the  death  of  Au- 
gustus to  Nerva  to  he  thirty.  Dut  Lipsius  and  Bayle  have 
already  observed,  that  the  Histories  must  have  contained  far 
more  books  than  the  share  of  this  number  due  to  the  Annals 
would  leave  for  them.  Bayle  was  very  near  a  conjecture  which 
I  bold  to  be  certain.  It  is  probable  that  the  Histories  com- 
prized thirty  books,  and  that  .Jerome,  by  a  very  common 
oversight,  mentioned  the  right  number,  but  applied  it  erro- 
neously In  both  works. 


670  Nietnthr  on  the  DiaHnctUm^  SfC. 

I  conclude  these  remarks  by  asking,  whether  the  title  of 
the  books  of  Livy :  historiarum  ah  urbe  condita,  is  founded 
on  good  manuscripts?  The  grammarians,  Diomedes  as  well 
as  Friscian,  never  cite  otherwise  than  Livius  ab  urbe  oondita 
libro — and  this  would  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  the  historian 
had  added  nothing  more:  perhaps  that  he  might  not  use  the 
title  either  of  annates  or  historicB:  but  as  this  inscription 
sounded  very  strange,  it  was  filled  up. 

C.  T. 


HANNIBAL'S  PASSAGE  OVER  THE   ALPS. 


The  celebrated  question  of  Hannibars  passage  across  the 
Alps  has  now  for  some  years  been  suffered  to  sleep  in  this 
country,  and  it  appears  to  be  a  pretty  general  persuasion  thai 
it  has  been  finally  set  at  rest.  The  result  of  General  MelviUe'*8 
personal  obser%ations,  illustrated  by  Dc  Luc'a  learning,  and 
conlirmed  by  the  investigations  of  an  English  traveller  (the 
author  of  the  Oxford  DUnertation  on  the  Passage  of  Han- 
nihal  across  the  Al^is),  was  in  1825  repeated  in  the  Edinburgh 
Review,  and  by  the  last  writer  (p.  l^i)  is  supposed  to  be 
placed  beyond  the  reach  of  controversy.  It  is  probable  tliat 
the  Reviewer,  though  he  has  certainly  contributed  leas  of  argu- 
ment to  the  cause  than  any  of  his  predecessors,  has  produced 
more  effect  on  the  mind  of  the  public  than  all  of  them  put 
together,  and  that  he  has  the  chief  merit  in  establisliing  the 
general  con^Hction  which  Rccms  at  present  to  prevail,  that 
Hannibal  crossed  the  Alps  by  the  passage  of  the  little  St 
Bernard.  If  the  repose  into  which  the  controversy  has  sub- 
sided bad  been  merely  the  result  of  weariness  on  the  part  of 
the  disputants  or  of  the  pubhc,  we  should  have  scrupled  to  add 
even  a  scrap  to  the  enormous  moss  of  literature  which  has  been 
alrea<ly  piled  upon  this  theme.  But  as  those  who  have  taken 
an  interest  in  the  question,  and  who  are  not  wedded  to  the 
opinion  they  may  have  embraced,  may  like  to  know  on  what 
grounds  arguments  which  to  them&elves  had  appeared  decisive 
have  not  satisBed  others,  and  by  what  means  later  inquirers 
Iwve  attempted  to  remove  objections  which  they  had  thought 
fatal  to  a  different  view  of  the  subject,  wc  make  no  apology  for 
reviving  the  discusdon.  Our  design  however  is  nut  to  pursue 
the  history  of  the  controversy  through  the  various  works  in 
which  it  has  been  carried  on  abroad  since  it  has  been  dropped 
at  home :  an  attempt  for  which  we  have  neither  space,  means, 
nor  inclination :   we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  a  brief  notice 


073 


HonnihaVe  Passage  over  (he  Alps, 


of  two  hypotheses  different  from  that  which  now  enjoys  ihe 
monopoly  of  public  favour.  One  of  these  we  are  tempted  to 
mention,  ratlier  by  its  Kingularity,  than  by  its  intrinsic  merit, 
or  by  the  force  of  the  arguments  emjiloyed  in  supporting  it. 
The  other  deserves  to  be  reconsidered,  because  it  has  been 
very  lately  defended  with  gicat  ability  by  a  writer  whose 
opinion  on  the  subject  carries  with  it  high  authority,  and  in  a 
■work  dedicated  to  the  illustration  of  ancient  geography.  AVe 
must  presume  the  reader  to  he  sufficiently  familiar  with  the 
principal  points  of  the  controversy  to  dispense  with  a  great 
deal  of  preliminary  explanation  which  may  be  found  in  a 
multitude  of  bdoks,  and  which  would  detain  us  from  the 
essential  feature*  of  the  question  on  which  alone  we  hare 
room  to  dwell. 

The  first  of  the  two  hypotheses  we  arc  about  to  consider 
was  proposed,  we  believe  for  the  first  time,  in  the  T^i^fteri 
Jahrhtiecher  for  1893,  by  a  \^Titer  named  Arneth,  who  at  the* 
eame  time  examines  at  considernhle  length  the  opinions  «nd 
I  arguments  of  the  principal  authors  who  had  discussetl  the 
question  before  him.  He  recognizes  the  authority  of  Polybius 
as  supreme  in  this  inquiry,  but  contends  that  wc  cannot  relj 
on  the  numbers  which  express  the  distances  in  stadia  according 
to  the  present  text.  lie  quotes  with  approbation  the  remarks 
of  the  Oxford  writer,  who  to  get  rid  of  the  objection  raised  by 
Strabo's  enumeration  of  the  passes  of  the  Alps  according  to 
Polybtus,  supposes,  as  Cluverius  had  done  before,  that  the 
words  riv  Avvijia^  5c^X0ec,  which  follow  the  mention  of  the 
pass  5ia  Tavpivwvy  belong  not  to  Polybius  but  to  Strabo,  andj 
oidy  express  an  opinion  of  tlie  latter,  which  he  had  probaWy 
adopted  from  Livy.  But  he  rejects  the  argument  which  De 
1.UC  draws  from  the  later  Roman  roads  across  the  Alps  as 
fallacious.  He  obser\'es  that  Dc  Luc  himself  appears  to 
ncknowledgc  its  weakness,  when  he  admits  that  most  of  these 
roads  were  made  in  the  time  of  the  emperors.  What  inference, 
he  asks,  can  be  drawn,  as  to  an  event  about  the  circumstances 
of  which  authors  disagreed  even  at  the  time,  from  the  exist- 
ence of  roads  made  some  centuries  later.  The  Edinburgh 
■Reviewer  rcHts  his  whole  argument  on  this  ground:  for  after 
mentioning  the  four  roads  which  Strabo  enumerates  from  Poly- 
bius, though  without  noticing  the  existence  of  the  words,  ijv 


HannibaVif  Pusaage  over  the  Alpe, 


673 


*Afvtfim  ot^Xdev,  he  concludes  that»  as  no  one  maintains  that 
Hannibal  crossed  either  by  the  Maritime  or  the  Rhietian  Alps, 
**  the  object  of  uur  searcli  must  ultiniattly  be  found  to  coincide 
either  with  Mout  Geoevre  or  the  Little  StBeniard."  It  might 
have  been  asked:  but  why  not  with  die  Mont  Cenis?  Dc  Luc 
replies  that  this  is  out  of  the  question,  because  nu  Uoniaii  road 
passed  over  it.  On  which  Arncth  remarks,  that  by  siiuilor 
reasoning  it  might  be  ^hewn  that  it  prolmbly  continues  un- 
troilden  to  the  present  dav:  for  why  should  the  ancients  have 
adhered  more  constantly  to  the  lK>aten  tracks  than  the  moderns? 
As  Charlemagne  li-cl  his  armies  across  the  Mont  Cenis,  without 
inquiring  about  the  Roman  roads,  so  the  Romans  might  carry 
a  road  over  the  Little  St  Bernardt  vithout  troubling  tbemsclveft 
about  HannibaPs  route. 

According  to  Arneth  himself  Hannibal  crossed  the  Rhone 
near  I'ont  St  Esprit,  and  with  the  exception  of  the  distance 
between  Vienne  and  Yenne,  where  he  took  the  shortest  cut, 
never  quitted  the  banks  of  that  river  till  he  reache<l  the  foot  of 
the  Simplon,  by  which  passage  he  crossed  the  Alps,  and  de- 
scended into  the  territory  of  the  Inaubres  near  Milan.  Aa 
this  hypothesis  diverges  from  General  Melville's  still  more 
widely  than  any  that  had  preceded  it,  we  are  naturally  curious 
to  hear  the*  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  The  author  conceives 
that  no  other  can  be  reconciled  either  with  the  circumstances  of 
Hannibal,  or  with  the  statements  of  Potybius  :  in  otlier  words 
the  course  it  points  out  was  the  most  natural  for  Hannibal  to 
take,  and  answers  beat  to  that  which  Polybius  describes.  The 
first  of  these  assertions  depends  chiefly  on  a  remark  which  had 
been  made  by  the  author  of  the  Diaserfation^  but  which 
Arneth  thinks  he  has  not  consistently  pursued  to  its  legitimate 
consequences.  The  English  writer  observes :  "  the  most 
rational  and  easy  way  to  penetrate  through  a  very  extended 
chain  of  mountains  is  to  trace  the  rivers  which  flow  from  tlieni 
up  to  their  sources,  for  subsistence  and  popidation  are  gene- 
rally to  be  found  on  their  banks,  and  the  road  is  usually  more 
easy  and  the  ascent  more  gradual,  &c.^  true!  exclaims  the 
German  reviewer,  but  why  diil  not  this  remark  lead  the  author 
to  follow  the  course  of  llie  llhniie?  Here  he  conceives  is  an 
iiiHurmountable  objectiun  to  tlie  hypothesis  which  leads  Han- 
nilial  acrom  the  Little  St  Bernunl.      It  assigns  no  motive  that 


e7« 


HannibttCs  Passage  over  the  Alps, 


should  have  induced  him  to  quit  the  basin  of  the  Rhone:   and 
hence  he  considers  the  route  of  the  Great  St  Eeniarti  as  one 
I  step  nearer  to  the  truth.     The  former  however  labours  under 
[some  other  difficulties:   as,  the  nilcnce  of  Polybius  about  the 
llsere,  the  names  of  the  tribes  into  whose  territories  it  leads, 
Itrhich  were  not  the  Insubres,  bitt  either  the  Salassi,  or  the  Lai 
land  Lebecae  (Polyb.  ii.  17.)      In  the  description  of  Polybius 
[there  are  two  features  which  strike  him  as  the  most  important, 
land  as  affording  a  decisive  criterion  which  no  other  hypotbesis 
[but  his  own  will  bear.      In  the  first  place  Polybius  descril 
the  Valley  of  the  Rhone,  and  remarks  that  the  plains  of  the' 
Fo  ore  separated  from  it  by  the  chain  of  the  Alps,  and  adds 
ithat  these  were  the  mountains  which  Hannibal  crossed  from  the 
tcountry  on  the  Rhone  to  enter  into  Italy  {aKpteputu,  av  to9' 
tvir^Mpa^  AKMi/Ja?  otfo  tw**  KaTa  tov   Pomii'DV  toitwv  et^^aXrv 
lek   IraXiav)     Hence  it  must  have  been  from  some  point  in 
the  Valais  that  Hannibal  effected  his  passage.      This  might 
indeed  Imve  been  Martigny,  if  there  had  been  no  other  objec- I 
tion  to  the  Great  St  Hcrnard.     Ibit  bcRide  that  the  distances 
and   features  of  the  mad  do  not  corres^Hmd  tu  the  account  of 
[Polybius,  and  that  Strabo  informs  us  that  this  track  was  im- 
I passable    for  beasts  of    burden  before  the  time  of   Augustus 
f  (Strabo  says,  iv.  p.  205.  tj  cid  tou  llotvtjfov  Xeyoftevov  X^vye^ 
\otv   oil  jiuTtj   Kara    ra    uKpa    rwi*  "AXttcwi'),    it   would    have 
[brought    Hannibal    down    into  a   different   region   from    that 
[which  he  sought,  and  found  according  to  Polybius,  who  ex- 
[pressly  states  that  after  having  accomplished  the  passage  of 
[the  Alps  in  fifteen  days,  he  t^ame  boldly  down  to  the  plains  on 
the  Po,  and  to  the  nation  of  the  Insubres.      This  points  to 
the  neighbourhood  of  Milan,  and  thus  confirms  the  conclusion 
[already  drawn  from  the  direction  in  which   the  nature  of  the 
I  Transalpine  regions  tended  to  determine  Hannibar«  march. 

But  now  the  intelligent  reader  will  naturally  be  tempted 
I  to  inquire,  as  the  author  takes  Polybius  for  his  guide,  how  be 
'reconciles  his  hypothesis  with  some  other  statements  of  the 
historian  no  less  precise  than  those  just  adduced,  and  appa- 
rently very  difficult  to  accomnuKlate  to  the  route  here  pro- 
posed. Polybius,  after  relating  the  assistance  which  Hannibal 
gave  to  the  elder  of  the  two  brothers  whom  he  foimd  at  war 
in  the  Islandj  proceeds  to  say  that  he  marched  eight  himdred 


Hannibar*  Passage  ocer  the  Alps. 


676 


stadia  in  ten  days  by  the  side  of  the  river,  and  then  began  the 
ascent  of  the  Alps  (in.  50.  'Atn^tfiav  ev  rjfiepats  i>4Ka  tropevdeti 
irapa  tov  troTOfiov  eir  ofcTafrtwioyy  trTo^loift  rfp^aro  Ttjv  "Trpos 
Tos  ''AX'rret^  at/a/^oX^«.  The  Gerniiin  critic  measures  this  ten 
days  niarcli  from  Vienne,  where  he  ctmcetves  Hnnnibul  arrived 
in  four  days  after  having  crossed  the  Rhuue  (Pulybius  iii.  49, 
says  that  he  cauic  in  that  time  to  tite  Jttland),  and  he  makes 
it  terminate  somewhere  near  Thouon  on  the  lake  of  Geneva. 
But  unfortunately,  satisfied  vith  attempting  to  shew  that  ou 
these  suppositions  the  time  occupied  by  the  passage  of  the 
Simplon  would  agree  with  the  numbers  in  Polybius,  he  Jias 
neglected  to  explain  some  other  difficulties.  For  instance,  it 
seems  exlraordlaury  that  Polybius  should  assign  ten  days  as 
the  duration  of  Hunnibul's  march  along  the  Uliune,  if  at  the 
end  of  that  time  he  still  continued  for  several  days  to  keep  by 
the  side  of  that  river.  And  it  is  no  less  diHicult  to  conceive 
why  any  point  on  the  lake  of  Geneva  sliotild  have  been  se- 
lected as  a  limit  between  the  first  and  the  last  part  of  this 
march.  If  however  tlie  historian  had  wished  to  mark  a  dif- 
ference in  the  nature  of  the  country,  without  meaning  to 
imply  that  the  road  now  quitte<l  the  Rhone,  one  should  rather 
have  expected  to  be  brought  at  the  end  of  the  ten  days  to 
St  Jean  Gingoulph,  and  to  iind  a  description  of  the  entrance 
of  the  Valois.  Polybius  (in.  uO)  contra.sta  the  march  along 
the  plain  with  the  ascent  of  the  mountains  in  a  manner  which 
clearly  implies  that  the  latter  begins  at  the  end  of  the  ten  daya 
march.  How  con  his  description  be  adapted  to  the  rond  be- 
tween Thonon  and  IJryg  ?  Arncth  has  neglected  to  answer 
this  question,  und  though  he  objects  to  General  Melville's 
hypothesis^  that  Polybius  does  nut  a  second  time  mention  the 
Isore,  by  the  side  of  which  the  road  mounts  toward  the  pass  of 
the  Lattic  St  Bernard,  he  has  not  thought  it  necessary  himself 
to  explain  the  historianV  silence  as  to  the  take  of  Geneva, 
which,  if  Hannibal  skirted  its  eastern  shore,  it  would  at  any 
rate  have  been  natural  to  mention,  and  which,  if  the  ten  days 
march  ended  there,  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  omit  noticing. 
Until  these  diflicuUies  and  several  others  which  we  need  not  here 
point  out  are  removed,  this  hypothesis  will  probably  gain  few 
adherents:  and  certainly  the  objections  which  the  author  has 
raised  to  some  of  those  which  he  rejects  arc  not  so  formidable 
Vol.11.  No.  6.  4R 


«76 


Hannibats  Passage  over  the  Alps^ 


that   tbey   need   drive  us   to   such   desperate    cxpodiontH. 
indeed    Hannibal    had    l>een   without    guides   or    infornmtion 
about  the  country,  there  might  be  room  to  ask   why   he  did 
not   follow   the  valley  of  the  Rhone,  till  he  hrard    of  a  pnsc 
whiili  woidd  Icaii  liiin  into  the  part  of  Italy  which  he  deatred 
to  reach.      Rut  if  he  had  means  of  learning  that  hy  <|uit(ing 
the    Rhone    at    Venne  he  could    effect    hi»    object     with    Ic&t 
difficulty  and  danger,  tlie  motive  required  i*  supplied.      Siill 
less   weight    can  be   attached   to    the  argument  drawn    from 
the  words  of  Polybiu»  which  describe   Hannibal  as  crossing 
from  tiie  countries  on  the  Rhone  into  Italy.     Thift  descHptioo 
will  surely  apply  to  any  one  point  in  the  basin  of  the  Hhon* 
between  its  source  and  its  mouth,  or,  as  Polybius  describe* 
it,    from  the  head  of  the   Adriatic  to  Marseilles  (in.  47. )>  ^ 
to  another.      The  advantage  which  the  pass  of  the  Simplon 
possesses,  of  bringing  Hannibal  immediately  into  the  territory 
of  the  Insubrcs,  is  of  no  moment  until  it  itt  proved  that  no 
other  answers  the  same  condition :   while  the  distance  between 
Milan  and  the  capital  of  the  Taurini  renders  the  expedition 
which  he  uhdert(xik   against  them  less  intelligible,  than  if  he 
descended    and    rested    his    arniv    on    the    iKtrders    of    their 
territory. 

But  we  turn  to  another  view  of  the  subject*  which  has 
mucli  liigher  claims  to  our  attention,  both  in  the  name  of 
the  author,  and  in  the  arguments  with  which  he  has  supported 
his  opinions.  It  is  contained  in  an  apjiendix  which  Uckerfe 
has  annexed  to  tlie  third  volume  of  his  elaborate  work 
(Geographic  dor  Griechen  und  Roemer,  ISSiJ).  He  bos  there 
defendetl  a  hypotljosis  which  had  been  adopted  by  nianj 
learned  men,  and  within  these  few  years  by  a  French  author 
(Laranza,  Histoire  critique  du  Pass.<)ge  dcs  Alpes  par  Anaibal, 
182G.)  whose  book  I  have  not  been  able  to  meet  with:  that 
Hannibal  crossed  the  Mont  Ceni.  Uckert  has  the  advantag 
of  coming  last  tu  the  discussion  of  this  question,  with  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  all  that  has  been  done  by  his  pre- 
decessors, and  with  all  the  light  that  profound  geographical 
learning  can  throw  u|Hjn  it:  so  that  a  review  of  his  orgumcnta  . 
may  exhibit,  though  not  the  history  of  the  controversy,  y« 
the  latest  stage  which  it  has  reached. 

There  arc  it  is   well  known   four   main   points  on  which 


HanttibaCt/  Pasaagv  over  the  Alps. 


677 


the  whole  controversy  depends.     I.  The  passage  of  the  Rhone. 

2.  The  position  of  the  Island  and  Hannibal's  movements  in  it. 

3.  His  march  to  the  foot  of  the  mountains.  4.  The  passage 
of  the  Alps.  These  we  will  consider  in  their  order.  We 
must  however  premise  that  Uckert  takes  a  different  view 
of  the  relative  authority  of  Polyhius  and  Livy  from  that 
whicli  has  been  adopted  bv  many,  |ierhaps  by  most,  preceding 
writers,  and  particularly  by  the  advocates  of  General  Melville's 
hypothesis.  He  observes  that  though  the  zeal  with  which 
Polybius  laboured  to  ascertain  the  trtith  is  indisputal>le,  his 
means  were  not  exactly  proportioned  to  his  gooil  will.  As 
the  Alps  in  his  time  were  inhabited  by  fierce  and  unconqucred 
tribes,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  explore  them  wilh  the 
same  calmness  and  undivided  attention  as  the  modem  tra- 
vellers who  have  visited  them  with  his  book  in  their  hands. 
The  dangers  and  difficulties  which  these  regions  opposed  to 
such  researches  in  early  times  are  alluded  to  by  Polybius 
himself,  la.  59,  and  are  indicated  by  Strabo,  iv.  c.  6,  where 
he  mentions  repeatedly  the  ferocious  character  and  predatory 
habits  of  the  Alpine  tribes.  Amongst  the  rest  he  says  of 
the  Salaasi,  who  inhabited  the  valley  of  Aosto,  that  till  lately 
they  had  maintained  tlicir  independence  against  the  Komans, 
and  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing  much  harm  to  those  who 
crossed  the  mountains  through  their  country.  HoXXa  Kari' 
(iXavTOv  Tovs  ot  avTO)v  vir€f}(ia\\oyTas-  ra  oprji  /rara  to 
XtjarpiKov  edo'!.  Notwithstanding  his  travels,  the  geographical 
knowledge  which  Polybius  had  acquired  was  very  imperfect: 
his  conception  of  the  direction  of  the  Alp.',  and  the  course 
of  the  Rhone,  erroneous:  and  his  erixirs  in  tliis  res^ipect  led 
him  to  flay,  that  Hannibal  after  crossing  the  Rhone  marched 
awuy  from  the  sea  eastward,  as  if  he  had  been  making  for 
the  midland  parts  of  Europe  (in,  47.);  when,  if  he  liad  been 
correctly  informed,  he  would  have  spoken  of  the  north.  With 
regard  to  Livy''»  relation  to  Polybius,  Uckert  observes,  that 
thougli  tlie  Roman  frequently  took  the  Greek  autlior's  descrip- 
tion as  the  foundation  of  his  own,  yet,  as  the  countries  of 
which  Polybius  wrote  were  much  better  known  in  the  time 
of  Augustus,  he  also  drew  more  accurate  accounts  from  other 
sources,  with  which  he  supplied  the  defects  of  his  predecessor, 
but   tHimetimes   without   perceiving   that   he  was  framing  his 


978 


HannUmfs  Passage  over  the  Mptt. 


narrative    out    of    statements    which    were  irreconcilably 
cordant.     We   now  proceed    to  notice  the  authors  views 
the  four  abovementioiied  questions. 

1.  The  passage  of  the  Hhonc.     Instead  of  Pont  St  Esprit, 
or    Roqucmaurc,  the  point  selected  by  Ue  Luc  and    his  fol- 
lowers,   Uckert    conceives    that    Hannibal    crossed    the    rivrr 
considerably    lower  down,  near    Beaucaire.      Polybius    indeed 
says   that    the    pa^isagc  took   place   at   about  the   distance  of 
four    days    journey    from    the    sea    (iii.  48.  ff^fSoV   i^uepup 
T€TTapwv  otov  avcyiav   aTparoTrecify    Ttjv   6a\a(Trrtji.       There 
is  no  reason  for  rendering  this  four  days  march.     Accorriiog 
to  the  other  meaning  the  distance  will  be  somewhat  jp^eater; 
hut    this   will  suit    the   actual   distance   Iwtween    Rut|Uuroaure 
and    the   iiioutli    of   the   river    perhaps    better    than    the    four 
days  march.)     Still  this  agreement  can  afford  no  safe  criterion 
until    we   have    ascertained    the    point    from    which    Polybius 
began  his  measurement  of  the  distance  from  the  sea,    which, 
as  the  mouths  of  the  Rhone  have  experienced  great  changes, 
cannot  now  be  determined,  and   also  the  direction  in   which 
he   measured  it :    and    this  may   have  depended  on   the  road 
which   the  state  of  the  waters  near  the  mouth  of  the   river 
left    practicable.     When    allowance    is    made   for    these    coo- 
sideratiotis,  Uckert  thinks  that   Beaucaire  might  not  be    loo 
near  the  sea  to  be  so  described.     The  motive  for  preferring 
it  to  other  points   higher   up  is,   that   it  lay  on  the  Roman 
road  from  Spain,  which  passed  through  Ruscino  and  IllilHTis, 
two  points,    as    we   learu   from    Livy,  in   Hannibal's    march. 

(Strabo,   IV.  p.  187-     Nc/xawrop 'ihovrat  Kara,   tijv  ck   Tt/v 

l^rtpiwi   eiv    Trjt'    iTaX'iav <)«;^e(  o    >)   Nejuuyaov   tow    /uCk 

'Pooavou  ircjoi  tKaxov  CTuciovs  KaOo  ev  Ttj  Trefinl^  Tru\i\vtor 
etTTi  TapdcKwv.)  According  to  the  present  text  of  Polybius 
(ill.  S9.),  there  was  already  in  his  time  a  measured  and 
marked  Roman  road  from  Carthagena,  or  even  from  Gades, 
to  the  passage  of  the  Rhone:  for  after  stating  the  distance, 
he  adds:  ravra  yap  vvt'  fBefitjfxaTKrrai  koI  o-etrij/ictatTai 
Kara  (TtocIovs  oktw  cia  'Pwjnalun>  cVcfxeXwy.  Rut  I.^ckert 
gives  some  strong  reasons  for  suspecting  that  these  words  are 
a  marginal  note,  which  has  been  introduced  into  the  text. 
The  fact  they  state  is  itself,  for  the  time  of  Polybius,  highly 
improbable ;   and  if  it  had  been  so  he  would  nut  have  qualified 


Hannibafg  i'aeeage  over  the  Alps, 


679 


his  account  of  the  distance,  as  he  does  in  two  iostanced,  witli 
the  particle  irtpi.  But  moreover,  the  length  as&igued  in  this 
remark  to  the  Honian  mile  is  not  the  some  at  wliicli,  as  Strabo 
informs  us,  Polybius  estimated  it.  (rii.  p.  S'i,^.  lIoXt!/3ioc 
7rpo(rT(0e($  Ty  o/rraaTaoiiw  civXeOpov,  o  eort  Tp'tTov  craiiov,} 
Hence  there  ifi  no  reafK)n  to  suppose  that  in  the  lime  of 
Polybins  the  distances  he  mentions  had  been  precisely  ascer- 
tained, nor  can  we  safely  draw  any  inference  from  them  as 
to  the  point  at  which  Ilannihal  reached  the  river.  But  on 
the  utlier  hand  it  h  higlily  probable  that  the  track  whicli 
Hannibal  pursued  van  the  same  olun^^  wliich  the  Roman  road 
was  afterwards  carried.  If  so,  he  had  no  motive  for  deviating 
from  it.  As  the  arrival  of  the  Roman  army  was  imexpetrted, 
he  could  not  alter  his  course  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the 
enemy.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  he  should  have  been  influenced 
by  the  passage  of  the  Durance,  which  in  the  dry  season 
presents  no  ditliculties.  The  Roman  road  to  Lyons  always 
crossed  this  river,  because  the  inconvenience  it  might  some- 
times occasion  was  compensated  by  the  advantage  of  passing 
the  Rhone  lower  down  where  its  stream  was  less  rapid.  That 
the  distance  of  the  place,  where  Hannibal  crossed,  from  the 
sea  was  not  so  j^ruut  as  has  been  BUp])oseil  bv  Dc  Luc,  seems 
to  foUuw  from  Scipio^s  march  to  the  Carthaginian  camp  from 
the  mouth  of  the  river.  He  reached  it  in  three  days,  if 
indeed  this  is  not  the  time  spent  both  in  giving  and  returning 
to  his  sliips,  as  the  language  both  of  I'nlybius  and  Livy 
might  be  construed.  (Fol.  iii.  49;  Liv.  xxi.  Si.)  We  are 
not  told  that  he  crossed  the  Durance,  which  ]>roves  either 
that  it  did  not  lie  in  his  way,  or  tliat  it  was  not  dangerous. 
TJckert  also  raises  a  question  whether  the  vessels  (\etAfiai)  in 
which  Hannibal  transported  his  troops,  and  which  wertr  such 
as  the  natives  used  for  sea  voyages,  could  have  ascended  the 
river  as  high  as  Roquemaure.  I'olybius  indeed  remarks  that 
Hannibal  selected  a  part  of  the  river,  which  was  not  broken 
by  islands,  for  his  passage,  (iii.  42.  eve)(^eip€i  frote'tadai  rtjv 
^ta^ruTiv  Kara  rf}if  awX^v  pvaw,)  But  it  is  not  necessftrjr 
on  this  account  to  seek  for  a  place  distant  from  every  island, 
nor  to  reject  Reaucaire  because  it  lies  opposite  one.  All  that 
is  implied  by  the  description  is  that  Hannibal  crossed  either 
above  or  below  the  island,  most  probably  the  former.     The 


680 


HannihaCs  Ptumage  over  (he  Alps. 


description  in   Zc 


(viiz.  23.),  implies  that  some  isLiDds 


in   iCoDaras 
were  near. 

S.  Tlie  Inland.     From  the   place    where   he   passed    th« 
Rhone,  Hunnil)al  uiarched  in  four  days  to  the  Islafid.      Livy 
explains  the  direction  he  thus  took  by  hia  wish  to  avoid   the 
enetny.     Polybius  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  it  was  a 
circuitous  route:    this  Uckert   ascribcB  to  his  incorrect   con- 
ceptiiiii    of  the  course   of   the   Rhone.     The  real    motive   he 
Auppi^fies  to  have  been   the   wish  to  avoid  the  territories   of 
hostile    Ligurian    tribes:    the   road    was  the  same   which    the 
Celtic  envoys  had  taken  for  the  same  reason.     With  respect 
to    the  position  of  the  Island^    Uckert   admits  it   to  be   the 
tract   which   is    hounded    by   the   Rhone,   the    Iserc,    and   the 
intervtniiig   uiuuiitaiiis;    but  on  almost  every  other  {xjint   he 
ia   completely    at    variance  with    the    partisans    of    General 
Melville,     He  does  not  allow  that  any  alteration  is  ret:|iiired 
in  the  text  either  of  rolybius  or  Livy  where  they  describe  the 
Island,     As  to  the  former,  the  assertion  which  the  Kdinburgl) 
Reviewer    (p.  182.)    repeats    after    De    Luc :     that    General 
Melville  rcail  'ladpav  for  ^ku^jo?  or  ^wpm  in  a  Vatican  MS,^ 
of  Polybius,   has  been   contradicted   by   Maio,   who  assured 
Larnnsta  that  he  had  examined  ail  the  manuscripts  of  Potybiiu 
in    that    library,    and    had    found    no   euch     rcjiding.      Uckert. 

^thinks    the    change    unnecessary,    because    he    believes    that 
Polybius  did  not  know  the  true  name  of  the  Isere,  and  that* 

'he  mistook  it  for  the  Rhone,  and  applied  the  name  of  Scarad' 
or  Scoras  to*  the  real  Rhone.  Neither  Livy  nor  Polybius 
requires  us  to  suppose  that  Haniiibai  entered  cfie  Island: 
at  least  with  his  whole  army :  he  might  have  settled  the 
dispute  between  the  brothers  which  was  referred  to  his  arbitra- 
tion, (Liv.  xxt.  .HI.  Hujus  ftcditionis  disceptntio  quum  ad 
Hannil>alem  rojccta  csset,  arbiter  regni  factus,  q\iod  ea  scuatus 
principuni  que  sententia  fucrat,  impcrium  mujori  rcstitiiit), 
either  by  his  authority,  or  by  sending  a  small  detachment 
of  his  army-  (His  personal  presence  certainly  seems  to  be 
implied  by  the  words  of  Polybius,  ill.  •^.  ervvevtScuevcK  kqI 
tFvvfKjiaXwv  Toif  erepov.)  Hence  it  is  not  necessary  to  infer 
from  the  expression  >)k€  irpav  t»;v  ^ijaov  (ibid.),  that  in  this 
four  days  inarch  the  Carthaginian  anny  even  reached  the 
banks  of  the  Isere:  and  coiisetpiently  the  six  hundred  stadia, 


ffannibaVe  Passage  over  the  Alp». 


681 


which  according  to  Polyhius  were  travt-rscd  in  tins  march, 
do  not  cuuipel  us  to  fix  ihu  passage  of  the  Rhone  noi'th  of 
the  Durance,  though  there  were  seven  hundred  stadia  from 
that  river  to  the  I  sere. 

Polyhiufl  distinguishes  the  inliabitants  of  the  island^ 
whom  he  merely  terms  barbarians  witliout  naming  them, 
from  the  AUobrlges,  through  whose  territory  Hannibal 
marched  to  the  foot  of  tlie  Alps,  and  from  whose  liostility 
the  barbarians  of  the  Inland  protected  him  (c.  50.)  The 
Allobriges  or  Allobroges  appear  to  have  been  driven  north- 
ward from  their  original  scats,  in  wiiicli  they  were  known  to 
Apolludorus  as  a  raoet  powerful  nation  (Stcph.  Uyz.  i\XA.o- 
fipuye^)^  and  in  the  time  of  Livy  to  have  been  confined  to 
the  country  north  of  the  Isere.  This  state  of  things  he  has 
transferred  to  the  time  of  Hannibal.  Nis  AUobroges  inhabit 
the  Ittland  of  tlie  barbarians  of  Polyhius,  whicli  is  south  of 
his  own  Island:  incoittnt  prope  JUohrogeit.  Livy's  Island^ 
formed  by  the  Rhone  and  the  Saone  (Arar),  is  described 
in  a  manner  which  will  not  apply  to  that  of  Polyhius,  even 
if  the  name  Arar  is  altered  to  Isara.  It  is  not  a  tract 
resembling  the  Delta  of  the  Nile,  but  only  a  considerable 
district  {ngH  a(iqntmiAtm').  But  the  kingdom  about  which 
the  contest  decided  by  Hannilml  has  arisen  is  that  of  the 
AUobroges:  they  become  Hannibars  friends  and  allies,  tt 
is  not  however  said  tliat  he  marches  thmugli  their  territory : 
after  he  has  composeil  their  dissentions,  he  turns  to  the  left 
toward  the  Tricastini,  and  meets  with  no  obstacle  till  he 
reaches  the  Druentia:  a  description  which,  except  with  regard 
to  the  Druentia,  agrees  with  that  of  Polyhius,  on  the  sup- 
position -that  Hannibal  did  not  cross  the  Iscre,  and  that 
Polyhius  took  this  river  for  the  Rhone.  As  an  additional 
proof  that  Polyhius  did  not  conceive  Hannibal  to  have 
marched  tlirough  the  Island,  Uckert  very  sagaciously  refers 
to  the  description  of  those  difficult  and  almost  inaccessible 
mountains  (o^r;  cu<f7rpoaoda  kuI  cvatfifioXa  *:ai  a-^eoov  ws 
eliretv  aTrpoura)  which  formed  its  third  side;  and  compares 
this  with  the  vindication  of  Hannibars  prudence  against  thctae 
who  exaggerated  the  difficulties  of  his  passage:  (to  wept  x^s 
eprffiiaVi  en  6  epvfAVoTijTO^  Km  ova^wplav  tw¥  TowttJK,  tKCtiXou 
iroieT  TO  ^/evdos  avTtov.  c.  +8.) 


683  ffavnibafs   Passage  oner  the  Alp9. 

3.  According  to  Polybius,  Hannibal  is  conducted 
the  territory  of  the  AUobroges  by  the  barbarians  of  the  Isiand 
to  tbe  foot  of  the  Alps.     He  performs  this  march,  a  distance 
of  I'i^lit  hundred  i^tadia,  in  ten  days»  during   which  he   kept 
by    the    side  of  the  river.     On  the  supposition   we  are    now 
explaining,  as  the  river  is  the  Isere,  there   is  no    necessity 
for  doing  any  violence  to  t!ic  words  irapa  rov  •jroTa^ioi',  where- 
as l)e  Luc  and  his  followers  are  forced  to  suppose  a  deviation 
of  several  hundred    stadia  from    the  Rhone  between   Vienne 
and    Yenne.      In    the    direction  of  the   march,  Livy-   coincides 
with  Polyhius,  when  lie  makes  Hannibal  bend  his  course   to 
the   left   toward  the  Tricostini,    and    then   skirt  the   borders 
of  tlic  Vocontii  toward  the  Tricorii.     It  is  the  same  road  as 
Bellovesus   and  his   Gauls  had   formerly    taken    (Liv.  v.  34). 
The  expression,  ad  kevam  in  Tricastinw  Jiexity  must  be  un- 
berstoo<l  with  reference  to  the  previous  words,  ntm  jam  Jfpe^ 
pgterei :    when    Hannibal    had    turned    his   front   t(.)ward    the 
Alps,  the  Tricastinl  and  the  Isere  lay  on  his  left.     We  have 
therefore  only  to  measure  the  eight  hundred  stadia  along^  the 
Isere:    they  will  bring  us  to  Montuit-illaii,  uud  here  on  leaving 
-the  river  we  enter  tbe  mountains.     But  if  this  is  the 
by  which  Livy  also  leads  us,  how  do  we  come  to  the  Durance? 
It  is  the  mention  of  this  river  which  has  subjected   Livy  to 
the   charge   of   ignorance    and    carelessness    from   those    who 
believed  that  he  led  Hannibal  across  the  Mont  Genevre,  aad 
yet  adopted  a  description  from  Polybius  which  is  only  appli- 
c^le  to  a  different  part  of  the  Alps.     Uckert  thinks  that  this 
imputation  is   unfounded,   and   that    Livy's    Druentia   is  not 
the   Durance.     He  observes  that   Druentia,  like   Doria,   may 
have  been   the  name  of  several   Alpine  streams,   and  that   the 
Drac»    wliich    Hannibal  would    have  to  cross  on  the  road   to 
Moutmeillan,   answers   perfectly    to  Livy's   description   uf  the 
I  Druentia.      Afier  this  the  road  follows  the  valley  of  the  Arc 
toward    Mont   Ceni.     It  has   been    urged    that   the  valley    of 
the    Isere   could    alone    supply    the   Carthaginian    armv    with 
the  means  of  subsistence.     To  this  objection  Uckert  replies, 
that    the    Carthaginians   in    fact   suffered    from    the   want    of 
provisions,  (Pol.  in.  60.  Kaxaiv  «Tr7;WaTTe  t^  rtfiv  extTr}i)eitay 
(Twavet),  that  according  to  Livy,  (c.  31. ),  they  brought  a  stock 
with  them,  to  which  Polybius  also  alludes,  (tii.  f>0.),  supplied 


Hannibai't  Passage  over  the  Aip». 


683 


themselvtrs  for  three  days  fnini  the  plunder  of  the  town  (c.  S3)t 
and  afterwards  receiveil  a  fresh  supply  from  the  natives  (c.  34). 
The  motive  for  c{iiitting  the  Isere  at  Montnieillan  is  sufficiently 
indicated  by  the  map,  which  shews  that  the  road  from  hence  to 
Turin,  compared  with  that  by  the  Little  St  Bernard,  is  the 
chord  of  a  ^eat  curve. 

The  combat  with  the  mountaineers  wouUi  take  place  in  the 
defile  between  Aiguebellc  and  Argentil ;  the  army  encamped 
in  the  plain  by  Argentil,  and  hereabouts  lay  the  captured  town. 
On  the  Hfth  day  it  would  encamp  near  St  Jean  de  Mauriennc, 
in  a  fruitful  valley.  But  as  our  object  is  not  to  describe  the 
march,  but  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  arguments  by  which 
Uckcrt  supports  his  hypothesi.t,  we  need  not  enter  into  any 
further  details  on  this  port  of  the  subject,  and  will  only  add 
one  or  two  remarks  on 

IV.  The  Passage  of  the  Alps.  The  XevKOwerpov,  which 
General  Melville  believed  he  had  discovered  on  the  road  of  the 
Little  St  Bernard,  appears  to  be  still  more  strikingly  repre- 
sented on  that  of  the  Mont  Cenis,  or  rather  according  to  one 
of  the  latc&t  travellers  who  has  visited  the  country  with  a  view 
to  this  question  (Laranza),  it  ia  no  where  else  to  be  found. 
Saussure  had  remarked  it  as  one  of  the  most  singular  features 
in  this  passage:  Le  Mont  Cenis  prcsente  quelques  singularites 
que  je  ne  dois  pas  omettre  de  faire  reniarqucr.  D^abord  ce 
grand  amas  do  gypse  du  cote  de  la  Savoie,  &c.  It  is  known 
by  the  name  of  Kocher  blanc,  or  le  plan  de  roche  blunchc. 
Its  form  and  its  position,  for  it  overhangs  the  Arc  OD  the 
right,  while  on  the  left  the  road  passes  by  the  foot  of  the  pre- 
cipices down  which  the  natives  may  have  rolled  great  stones 
on  the  Carthaginian  army,  exactly  correspond  to  the  histo- 
riati's  description. 

The  plateau  of  the  Mont  Cenis,  where  Hannibal  would 
arrive  between  the  35th  and  SOth  of  October,  and  where  if  he 
passed  over  it  he  remained  two  days,  is  excellently  suited  for 
an  encampment:  it  is  sheltered  by  the  surrounding  ridges,  and 
aHbrds  good  pasture  on  the  margin  of  its  little  lake.  Snow 
had  by  this  time  fallen  for  some  weeks,  and  having  been  turned 
into  ice  by  the  heat  of  the  sun  and  the  frost  of  the  nights, 
might  be  taken  for  the  remains  of  the,  former  winter.  (Polyb. 
111.  55.  Liv.  XXI.  36.)  From  the  top  of  the  ridge  which 
Vol.  IL  No.  6.  4S 


6M 


Hwtnihafs  Ptmsa^  over  the  Aipx. 


iflfiloaes  th«  ba^in  of  tlie  Hospice,  Hannibal  mi^ht  have  potnted 
out  the  plains  of  Piedmont  to  a  part  of  his  troops. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  Livy  should  omit  the 
opportunity  which  his  subject  supplied,  of  a  rhetorical  descrip- 
tion of  the  horrors  of  the  Alps.  Accordingly  ho  has  painted 
them  (xxi.  32.)  in  terms  whicli  a»  they  arc  not  applicable  tn 
the  Mont  Genevre,  which  it  has  been  Huppined  he  niL*dnt  to 
describe,  have  subjected  him  to  the  reproacli  of  ifrnon^nce  or 
incon^Rtency.  Uckert  on  the  other  hand  observes  that  It  >• 
Polybius  wlm  has  exaggerated  the  rigour  of  the  climate  at  the 
top  of  the  Alps,  and  that  Livy,  more  accurately- in  form  etl,  has 
softened  those  features  in  hia  description  which  are  too  highly 
charged.  The  former,  after  mentioning  that  the  elephants  had 
suffered  greatly  from  hunger  before  the  roitd  was  opened  Ua 
them  in  that  part  of  the  descent  which  detained  the  army  for 
three  days,  adds,  that  the  summits  and  the  topmost  sides  of  the 
Alps  arc  all  utterly  destitute  of  wood  and  herbage  (reXfvt 
a&ev^pa  Km  >//iXa)  because  the  snow  remains  upon  them  con- 
stantly both  summer  and  winter.  Livy  in  describing  ihe 
descent  notices  the  existence  of  at  least  a  scanty  vegetation 
(c.  s6.  virgulta  ac  stirpes  circa  eminentes — c.  S7.  ouda  fere 
cacumina  sunt,  rt,  si  quid  est  pabuli,  obruunt  nives).  With 
resjjecl  alst)  to  the  celebrated  exjH'dient  by  which  Livy  repre- 
sents Hannibal  to  have  opened  a  road  down  the  precipice  which 
stopped  his  march,  Uckert  viiidirates  the  Koman  hi^itorian 
from  the  charge  of  gross  credtdity,  which  has  frcijuently  btvn 
brought  against  him;  by  none  more  conBdently,  or  perhaps 
with  less  knowledge  of  the  subject,  than  the  Edinburgh  Re- 
viewer (p.  l'>8),  who  in  general  throughout  the  article  seems 
to  have  thought  it  necessary  to  make  up  for  the  want  of  oti- 
ginality,  by  the  dogmatical  tone  with  which  he  asserts  the 
opinion  he  adopts,  and  the  asperity  with  which  he  censures 
those  who  either  contradict  it,  or  involuntarily  give  oWdenoc 
against  it.  The  real  foundation  of  the  account  about  the  fire 
and  vinegar,  is  still  matter  of  controvcrsv  among  competent 
judges.  The  Reviewer,  who  does  not  seem  to  know  that  it 
was  even  thought  to  have  had  any,  has  certainly  not  entitled 
himself  to  pronounce  that  it  was  "doubtless  intended  as  an 
embellishment.'*^ 

Still  less  is  he  justified,  so  far  a*  Livy  is  concemetl,  in  his 


HannibaCit  Passage  ooer  the  A^pe. 


685 


li-Ct 


renmrk  (p.  I69)»  that  **the  radical  error  wliich  lu 
the  speculations  of  all  those  who  have  turned  their  uttentiou  tu 
thiH  question,  front  the  time  of  Livy  to  that  of  Mr  Whilaker, 
aj>pears  to  have  cunsistetl  in  their  first  adopting  some  hypu- 
the»iH  as  tu  the  shiirte.st  and  most  pructicahle  romi  from  Guul 
iuto  Italy,  aud  theit  betaking  thenisulveti  to  the  ancient  writers 
— not  to  asct;rtaiii  what  road  they  f)X  upon,  or  if  they  difier 
to  decide  between  them  on  the  best  evidence  that  the  case 
admits  of,  but — to  hunt  for  authorities  in  support  of  the  hypo- 
thescB  they  had  determined  to  maintain.*'  Whoever  eliie  may 
be  liable  to  this  charge^  we  cannot  hiy  it  upon  Livy  without 
imputing  wilful  falsehood  to  bim.  He  professes  to  have  been 
governeil  by  the  unanimous  authority  of  all  preceding  writers, 
who  a<lmilted  that  Hannibal  came  down  into  Italy  among  the 
Taurini  (In  Tauriniu  in  Italiam  degres&um  quum  inter  omnes 
constet.  c.  38),  and  from  this  he  infers  that  IlannihaVs  road 
cannot  have  crossed  either  the  great  or  the  little  St  Bernard, 
since  in  each  case  he  would  have  come  down  not  among  the 
Taurini,  but  tirst  among  the  Salassi  and  then  among  the  Libui. 
If  Strabo  has  not  interpo&ed  his  own  opinion  among  the  words 
of  Polybius,  which  is  a  mere  suspicion  raised  by  the  interest  of 
a  hypothesis,  Polybius  coincided  with  Livy''s  other  authors  on 
tliis  ]xiint.  But  it  would  not  follow,  as  the  Kdinburgh  Re- 
viewer assumes  (p.  171)*  that  he  led  Hannibal  over  Mont 
Geuevre,  nor,  as  we  have  seen,  is  it  certain  that  this  was  Livy^s 
meaning. 

Still  there  is  some  difficulty  in  reconcibng  the  statement 
which  Strabo  seems  to  attribute  to  Polybius,  T171'  ^ta  'Vavptvtou 
i}v  'Aifvilia^  ^tifXOcy^  with  his  extant  words  in  the  passage 
where,  after  mentioning  that  Hannibal  had  spent  6fteen  days 
in  crossing  the  Alps,  he  adds,  that  he  descended  boldly  upon 
the  plains  near  the  Po,  and  among  the  nation  of  the  Insuhres 
{Karriff*  ToKfAtjpw  e'tt  xa  irepl  tov  Wacov  Treoia  «ai  to  twi/ 
laonfipott'  €$v<k).  Uckert  supposes  Polybius  to  have  becncon- 
siclcrubly  mistaken  about  the  course  of  the  Po,  to  have  placed 
it  too  far  south,  and  to  have  osMgned  the  country  at  the  foot  of 
the  Alps  almost  from  its  sources  for  a  great  extent  eastward  to 
the  Insubres.  Through  their  territories  Haunibal  had  to  march 
into  those  of  the  Taurinif  who  are  said  to  be  vpoi  n;  irapoipeu^ 
Knrowovvrt^^  where  ou  his  descent  from  the  moimtains  he  en- 


680 


HannibaVs  Fasnage  ueer  the  Alp». 


camped  (liir'  ayri/K  x^i*  irapwpetav  t^Hv  A\v€wv).  This  may 
be  the  correct  view  of  the  cose ;  but  it  seeni6  also  possible  that 
the  mention  of  the  Insubres  was  meant  in  a  less  exact  sense, 
and  is  to  be  ijualified  by  the  description  of  ihe  Taurini,  so  that 
in  fact  the  latter  intervened  for  a  short  distance  between  the 
foot  of  the  Alps  and  the  losubres,  though  these  are  named  a» 
HannibaVs  most  powerful  ally. 

A  table  of  posts  along  the  road  between  Montmeillan  and 
Hivoli  gives  very  nearly  the  distance  of  1200  stadia,  at  which 
Folybius  vaguely  estimates  the  march  across  the  Alps  (irfpi 
j^iXiow  ctatfoc'tow,  c.  SJ)). 

This  short  sketch  will  we  hope  be  sufficient  to  put  the 
reader  in  powiession  of  the  author's  views,  and  it  will  scarcely 
be  denied  that  they  deserve  attention,  and  shew  that  General 
Melville^s  hypothesiit  has  not  yet  been  placed  beyond  the  reach 
of  controversy.  On  the  other  hand  it  must  be  admitted  that 
they  involve  some  propositions  which  are  rather  startling,  and 
which  ought  not  to  be  admitted  without  great  circumspection. 
If  Livv's  Druentia  is  the  Drac,  was  he  acquainted  with  the 
Durance,  or  did  he  think  it  unnecessary  to  notice  it  P  This 
however  is  a  slight  difficulty,  compared  with  the  mistake  attri- 
buted to  Polyhiufl  about  the  Isere  and  the  Jlhone.  Was  he 
let!  into  this  error  by  the  information  he  received,  or  bv  the 
sight  of  the  two  rivers?  Must  it  not  have  been  corrected  if 
he  hud  followed  either  of  them  up  toward  its  source  ?  These 
are  some  of  the  questions  which  will  no  doubt  suggest  them- 
selves to  the  reader,  and  which  we  must  leave  to  better  judges 
to  decide. 

C.  T. 


MISCELLANEOUS  ODSERVATIONS. 


T. 

Emendations  of  Atheneextt. 

Athen.  ti.  p.  44  F.  Ed.  Dind.  Eu^o/?ia>M  ^e  d  XoXm- 
det)ff  ouToi  xou  ypa<fici'  Aaavpra^  Aatrnavioi:  ovi>i  wpoaeteiTO 
TTOTou  KoQavep  €1  aXAoi,  ot/y:>of  oe  vpoUro  KadtiTrep  iravTe^ 
av$pa>jroi,  kai  ttoXXoi  oid  KptKoTtulav  vwe^dprjanv  Trapa- 
TTjp^trat'  xat  awearyiaav  irpo  tow  (vpeiv  ro  -TrpaTTontvop, 
0€pov^  yap  ti}p<f  Kul  TpiaKOvOffuepov  trpoa^dpevovTei,^  «ai 
ouoct-w?  nev  opwvTe^  aireyotx^vov  aXfivpoVf  Ttjv  KtfOTtv  b  avTov 
ej^ovTa,   avveireia9fj<7av  aXr^eveiv, 

It  is  clear  tlmt  the  words  t^v  Kvfrriv  d  avrou  e^oi'Ta 
arc  corrupt,  and  Mfiiu'ke  (Euphor.  Trng.  p.  U>7.)  ohserves, 
that  nu  critic  has  been  hitherto  able  to  restore  the  passage. 
I  imagine,  however,  that  a  slight  attention  wnuld  eff'ect  this. 
I  would  read  Ttjv  nvaTtv  d  nvTov  eu  evofTa^  and  then  the 
sense  would  be  perfectly  plain. 

Athen.  III.  p.  1 1 1  B.      ^WpexpaTij^     KiriXtjiTtJiovi 

i^ev  of^\'tav  airo6tv*  apTov  i)e   fxij  irportftaV' 
Dobrec  reads  eriro^etF,   (Adv.  t.  ii.  p.  302.)  which  is  doubtless 
right;   but  wXey  is  also  corrupt,   and   I   would  propose  sub- 
stituting  X   oiXoy,   i-  e>  icai   o\oy. 

Athen.  v,  p.  204  E.  To  Se  ayjifi  aur^v  ovre  tqis  naKpats 
vautrlv  ot/T€  ratv  txTpoyyuXati  eoiKo^j  aWa  iraprjWayfieifOf 
T€  Kai  "Tpov  Trjv  -^piiav  TOO  ■jroTajutov  TO  ^aSoi,  Dindorf 
observes,  "  Nisi  plura  ex  hoc  loco  exciderunt  scribendum 
ttaltcm,  TovT€  troTafiou  to  /3a0o9.^  I  conceive  that  nothing 
is  wanting,  but  we  must  read  iraprjWayfxdvov  ti. 

Atlien.  IX.  p.  393  C    ''Ixjrapvos  ev  Tp   Aiywritf  *lAfa^i 
Otf  fitu   AiyvirTtwv  /3(o?   ijpeaev  oXov  tj^oytri, 
XeVMa   TiXXoi'Tf?  xaXicaTiadet  aaXtovTa. 


688  Miscellaneous  Obsercatione. 

I  propose  reading  in  the  second  line, 

Xevvta  TiWoyrfS  ku-^  uXana  oetffaXeovTa. 
These  ^evyta  were  small  birds,  salted  and  pickled.  It  must 
be  allowed  that  we  have  no  authority  for  ^euraXew,  but  we 
have  in  Suidas  SeuraXeos'  KOTrpto^rj^.  Perhaps  ^uraXoeirra 
might  be  preferred,  as  being  more  Homeric;  the  poem  of 
this  Hipparchus  being  probably  a  parody  of  the  Iliad.  Jacobs 
had  already  suggested  that  koko  entered  into  the  corrupt  word 
KoXKaTidoei . 

Athen.  vxi.  p.  307  B.  EvBu^tjfxo^  Ee  6  'AOtjvattKt  ev  t^ 
wept  Tap'i-^wv^  **  Ejf^ij  Ke<rTp€wv  etvat  trtptjvea  kui  oaxTuXea. 
Kai  Ke<pa\ov%  fi€v  \eyea9at,  8ta  to  ^apvTCpav  tijv  Ke(PaXtjr 
eyeiVj  atprjveas  de  oti  Xayapol  xat  Tcrpaytuvoc  ra  oe  TtD¥ 
oaKTvKewv  to  irkaTo^  e^e*  ekatraov  twv  cwcTf  caKTvXeov,'" 
Schweighasuser  in  a  note  says,  *^  StSaKTvXetov  edd.  aed  ne  nunc 
quidem  persanatus  locus.""  It  would  seem  that  the  corrupt 
reading  must  have  arisen  from  Sia  improperly  coalescing  with 
BaxTuXewv.  We  ought  therefore  to  read,  "rd  5c  rcov  ^oktv- 
Xeojv  Ota   TO   irXaTo^  e^eii'  eXatrtrov  toJv  oveiv  oaKTuXwv. 

Athen.  x.  p.  430  D,  xi.  p.  481  A.  A  well-known  fragment 
of  Alcaeus,  variously  attempted  by  several  eminent  critics, 
but  as  yet  according  to  Matthice  (Alcaei  Frag.  p.  32.)  un- 
satisf^torily.     Person,   Adv.  p.  ]19,  reads, 

]JivQ}fji€V'  T(  TO.  Xv^v  dfAfjievofiev^  oolktvXo^  dfUpa' 
Kdoo  aeipe  /ci/Xf^^rms  fieydXtxK  at  Ta  7roiic*Wi7s. 
and  adds,  "  vulgo  roi;  Xt/i^i'oi'.  Secundum  versum  qui  velit 
et  possit  corrigat.*"  A  challenge  from  such  a  man,  who  may 
be  called  a  '*  dead  shot*"  at  an  emendation,  is  an  awkward 
thing;  nevertheless  critics  have  been  found  in  abundance, 
who  would  attempt  what  the  great  master  has  pronounced 
incurable.  Matthias  has  enumerated  about  a  dozen  of  these 
attempts,  some  by  renowned  scholars  of  the  present  day. 
Dindorf,  in  his  edition  of  Athenaeus,  has  adopted  the  very 
ingenious  and  simple  correction  of  an  anonymous  critic  in 
the  Jena  Lit.  Journal  for  the  year  1806,  No.  249, 

Kaoo'  aeipe  KvXi-^^yat^f  jucyoXai;,   aira,    voiaciXcuv, 
but  if,  as  Matthiae  remarks,  (Ale.  Frag.  p.  SS.)  the   second 
syllable  in   atTtji   is  always  long,    the  correction   is   invalid 
with  respect  to  quantity.     The  field  being  therefore  still  open, 
I  would  venture  to  propose  reading 


MiftretJatieuuM   OliKeri'iitimta. 


(m 


KaCd    aetp€  a'u\i^wi«,   fieyaXaK,  avaToir<TtKi\aK. 
The  handles  of  cups    were  called   wra,  which   the  ^CoLiflns 
wrote    auoTa.     The  compound   word   ovaroKoiTtji^  occurs  in 
Nonnus    Dionys*  xxvi.    p.  6Ra,    and    xxx.    p.  7^2.     There    is 
another  fragment  of  AlcaMis  which  has  not  less  puzzlei)  critics 
who  have   made  the  fragments  of  that  Puet  tl>cir  jurticular 
study.      It  occurs   in    Hesychius  under  tlie  word    ' I'.iriirv^viov- 
itrtfiKcTriffv'      AioXiKtwy    koI    .\X«aiov*       *iTruv   auvuyntiipniv    Sa- 
afAevo¥  trrpaTov  votiiafitvoi  Tveotaa.      The  din'erent  conjectures 
of  the  learned  on  this  passa^  may  he  seen  in  Albertius'  Notes 
to  Hesychiust  Bp  Blomfield^H  and   Matthia,''8   editions  of  the 
Fragments  of  AlcKua.     They  all  fail,  I    think,  in  having  no 
noun  to  agree  with  Tri^'oicra,  the  principal  word  of  the  example. 
The  following  attempt  is  at  least  not  Uiihle  to  this  objection  : 
ll^ot/  trvvaytv  dvopwv  dvufievetov  (rrpaTof 
Ne/icms  fievet  wveotaa. 
The  glo^a  eeeins  to  require  eviweourat  but  perhaps  the  Gram- 
marian only  wished  to  point  out  the  ^Eolic  participles  of  ttWo;, 
which  occurred  in  Alco-us. 

Athen.  xiv.   p.  til.^  A.     'An<ht^wv,  irXuKov^  'Apre/itoi  ava- 

Aprefju,  *pi\r}  iefftrotfa,  rovrotf  trot  tptpta 
at  iroTt-i',  afjtfbttptovTa  nai  airo»otiatfia. 
The  word  tnrauh'jtjtna  is  acknowledged  to  be  corrupt,  and 
Coray  in  the  Supplenicut  to  Schnt-ider's  Gr.  Lexicon,  proposes 
reading  xai  a-novdw  aua — pcrliaps  it  should  be  a-woCtiatuov 
from  <r7ro^'rti,  to  toast  on  the  coals;  whence  bread  »o  baked 
was  called  tnroolrtis  aprw- 

I.  A.  C, 


II. 
NoHee  of  MicnlVs  History  of  the  Ancient  Natiotm  of  Italy, 

luiCALi  has  recently  published  at  Florence  a  Sforia  degli 
nntichi  jyopoii  ItaHanu  in  part  founded  on  his  former  1)ook, 
ritalia  nvauti  il  domhiio  del  Rotnani-,  but  for  the  most  part 
a  new  work.  Without  adopting  the  histoncAl  system  of 
Niebuhr  with  respect  to   the  primitive  inhabitant*)  of   Italy* 


690  Miscellaneous  Observations. 

he  has  greatly  profited  by  his  researches:  with  the  work  of 
MuUer  he  appears,  to  have  been  only  partially  acquainted. 
Micali^s  work  may  be  considered  as  occupying  a  middle  spac:e 
between  popular  and  critical  histories:  it  cannot  be  called  a 
critical  history,  like  those  of  the  German  writers,  as  the  authcw 
does  not  appear  to  be  a  philologist,  or  to  have  paid  particular 
attention  to  the  ancient  languages :  nor  is  it  composed  after 
the  manner  of  popular  histories,  as  it  is  founded  on  original 
researches,  and  does  not  repeat  as  literal  truths  the  fables  and 
legends  of  ancient  poets  and  mytbologists.  On  this  account 
it  may  be  expected  to  diffuse  a  juster  view  of  the  nature  of 
early  historical  accounts  than  investigations  conducted  with 
greater  critical  research,  as  there  are  many  persons  who  might 
read  the  speculations  of  Micali  with  advantage,  to  whom  Nie- 
buhr  or  Muller  would  be  a  sealed  book. 

The  following  is  the  chief  part  of  Mr  Micali'*s  abstract  of 
his  system  annexed  to  his  second  volume : 

"  Aborigines  (indigenous  population) :  generic  name  of 
the  primitive  inhabitants  and  cultivators  of  Italy. 

CENTHAL    ITALY. 

"  I.  Siculians.  The  most  ancient  of  that  name  mentioned 
in  history  belonged  to  the  race  of  the  primitive  Auruncians 
and  Oscans :  spread  over  many  parts  of  the  peninsula :  were 
driven  by  the  irruption  of  other  nations  into  Sicily,  to  which 
they  gave  their  own  name. 

"  II.  Umbrians.  Ancient  nation  of  Oscan  race.  Pressed 
and  driven  back  by  the  foreigners  occupying  the  shores  of  the 
Adriatic,  they  extend  a  long  way,  principally  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  Siculians,  as  far  as  the  other  side  of  the  Tiber  and  the 
Amo.     Thence  expelled  by  the 

'*  III.  Ra-sense,  another  indigenous  people  :  called  by  the 
Greeks  Tyrsenians  or  Tyrrhenians,  by  the  Romans  Etruscans 
or  Tuscans.  They  establish  a  firm  dominion  beyond  the  Amo 
and  Tiber  on  the  ruins  of  the  Umbrians :  thence  they  extend 
their  rule  over  a  large  part  of  the  peninsula,  and  found  two 
new  states;  viz.  1.  New  Etruria,  with  twelve  tnties  in  Upper 
Italy.  A  large  part  of  the  Etruscans  fly  into  Rhsetia  on 
account  of  the  Gallic  invasion  in  153  U.  C.  S.  Southern 
Etruria,  with  twelve  other  cities  in  Opicia,  afterwards  called 
Campania  Felix. 


M  isretiarteoflA 


(»W. 


691 


"  IV.  Oscans,  Opicans,  Auruncians ;  principal  branch  of 
the  great  primitive  Italian  stock  ;  called  by  the  Greeks  Auso- 
nians :  generic  name  of  the  indigenous  tribes  establislied  as  far 
aH  the  extreme  point  of  the  peninsula.  Fierce  foreign  nations 
of  Illyrians,  Libumianst  Pelaago-Thessalians,  ])ass  from  the 
opposite  shore  of  the  Adriatic  to  the  coabts  of  Italy  ;  press  the 
natives  in  many  directions,  and  cause  the  wars  which  after- 
wards changed  the  abodcN^  uamest  and  existence  of  many  Italian 
tribes." 

From  this  outline  it  will  be  seen  that  Micalt's  views  differ 
widely  from  those  of  Niebiihr :  principally  in  his  considering 
the  ab()rigines  to  be  the  indigenous  |X)pulation  of  the  whole  of 
Italy,  whereas  Nicbuhr,  adhering  more  closely  to  the  ancient 
accounts,  restricts  them  to  Latiuiu:  in  his  referring  the  Sicu- 
lians  to  the  Oscan  race,  whereas  according  to  Niebuhr  they  are 
Pelasgians :  and  in  his  making  the  Etruscans  an  aboriginal 
people,  K'hereas  Niebuhr  believes  that  the  Pelasgians  or 
Pelasgo-Tyrrhenians  were  the  earliest  inhabitants  of  Italy 
known  to  history,  and  that  the  Etruscans  or  Ilasena?  were  a 
conquering  tribe,  which  descended  into  Etruria  from  Rhtetia. 
Whichever  of  these  opposite  opinions  the  progress  of  historical 
enquiry  may  tend  to  confirm,  the  Italian  writer  at  least  de- 
serves credit  for  having  freed  himself  from  the  system  accre- 
dited by  I^ADzi  and  his  followers,  and  for  having  recognized 
the  entire  dissimilarity  of  the  Etruscan  anrl  Greek  languages. 

Speaking  of  the  indigenous  population  of  the  inland  parts 
of  Italy,  Mr  Micali  remarks  that  the  mountaineers  being 
essentially  shepherds,  were  unwilling  to  occupy  districts  of 
unhealthy  atmosphere,  or  marshes,  or  swamps,  where  the  pas- 
ture was  neither  good  of  their  kind  nor  sufficient  in  quantity : 
and  undoubtedly  the  habits  of  their  ordinary  life  kept  them 
at  a  distance  from  the  sea,  and  unaccustomed  to  it.  The  sea- 
shore was  therefore  generally  uninhabited,  unctdtivated,  and 
ill  guarded  by  the  untives.  "And  this  (hu  continues)  is  in 
my  opinion  the  chief  reason  why  the  strangtTs  who  first  landed 
on  the  coasts  of  Italy  were  able  to  establish  themselves  there 
80  easily  with  little  or  no  opposition  from  the  natives,  who 
withdrew  towards  the  interior,  to  tiieir  habitual  and  safer 
abodes  in  the  mountains."  (Vol.  i.  p.  178-9.)  Hence,  having 
asserted  that  the  establishment  of  the  Lucanians  in  the  south- 
Vor..  11.  No.  6.  i-T 


692  MtMcellaneous  Obaervahons, 

ernmost  part  of  Italy  must  be  considered  of  great  antiquity, 
he  argues  against  Niebuhr  (Vol.  i.  p.  75)  that  the  dominion 
of  Sybaris  over  the  country  between  the  two  seas  before  S4S 
U.C.  and  the  foundation  of  Pyxus  by  Micythus  in  280  U.C. 
do  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of  Lucanians 
in  those  parts :  as  the  Sybarites,  like  all  the  other  Italiots, 
had  no  dominion  in  the  mountains,  and  those  to  which  Micy- 
thus led  his  Rheg^an  colony  on  the  Lucanian  territory  was 
either  uninhabited  at  that  time  on  account  of  the  unhealthi- 
Dess  of  the  place,  or  left  uncultivated  by  the  natives  (Vol.  i. 
p.  323). 

Micali  denies  that  Lucumones  was  the  name  of  a  class 
(Vol.  II.  p.  76),  and  he  thinks  that  the  walls  of  the  Btruscan 
cities  do  not  bear  the  mark  of  having  been  built  by  serfs,  and 
cannot  be  considered  as  prodTs  of  the  vassalage  of  a  large  part 
of  the  population ;  but  that  they  appear  to  be  the  works  of 
wise  citizens,  having  nothing  in  their  construction  which  ex- 
ceeds the  power  of  free  though  not  large  communities :  espe- 
cially as  there  was  plenty  of  stone  either  on  the  spot  or  in  the 
neighbouring  mountains  (Vol.  i.  p.  135).  The  singular  build- 
ings in  Sardinia  called  Nuraghi  (of  which  an  account  may  bt 
seen  in  the  Journal  des  Savans,  1827,  p.  206),  by  Niebuhr 
apparently  attributed  to  the  Tyrrhenians  (Vol.  i.  p.  144),  and 
by  Letronne  to  the  Etruscans,  are  considered  by  Micali  as 
Carthaginian.  He  likewise  thinks  that  they  were  not  places  of 
burial ;  but  he  does  not  indicate  his  own  opinion  as  to  their 
destination  more  distinctly  than  by  saying  that  they  were  pro- 
bably  "for  the  public  use.^  The  construction  of  some  of 
them,  being  high  conical  towers,  surrounded  by  smaller  towers 
connected  with  a  wall  containing  a  casemated  passage,  seems  to 
shew  that  they  were  used  for  some  purposes  of  defence  (Vol.  xu 
p.  46-8.) 

Micali  remarks  (Vol.  i.  p.  152.  xi.  150)  that  Niebuhr,  mis- 
led by  some  inaccurate  account,  cites  the  theatre  of  Fiesole  as 
a  colossal  building  of  the  Etruscans  (Vol.  x.  p.  98,  107) ;  but 
that  the  work  is  entirely  Roman,  and  of  no  very  ancient  date. 
In  the  passages  referred  to,  Niebuhr  evidently  appears  to  con- 
sider the  theatre  at  Fiesole  as  an  Etruscan  work :  he  likewise 
uses  it  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  Greek  dramas,  either 
originals  or  translations,  were  performed  at  Fiesole  (p.  Ill): 


MisceUnnevttg  Observations 


693 


though  it  might  have  been  l)iiilt  after  tlie  introduction  of 
the  Latin  language  into  Ktruria.  Micali  however  (Vol.  ii. 
p.  215.  n.  84)  appears  to  object  incorrectly  to  Niebuhr*"*  sub- 
stitution of  Volniua  for  Volumnius  in  Varro  de  L.  L.  iv.  9. 
Ut  V'^ulumnius  dicebat  qui  tregfedias  Tuscas  scripsit  (Vol.  I. 
n.  375),  on  the  ground  that  the  Volumnian  family  often 
occurs  iu  inscriptions  of  Perugia;  for  Niebuhr  distinctly 
states  that  Volnius  is  the  reading  of  the  Florentine  MS.  and 
(liut  Vtfiuvmius  is  an  unauthorized  correction  of  the  editors. 

Mr  Micali  thinks  that  the  dualism^  or  the  cxfslence  of  a 
good  and  evil  principle,  as  in  the  Egyptian  and  Persian  religions, 
was  the  basis  of  the  Etruscan  mythology  (Vol.  ir.  p.  I2.'>),  and 
he  derives  from  Egypt  the  ancient  architecture  and  sculpture 
of  the  Etruscnns  (ibid.  p.  2.1(^-7).  On  the  great  uncertainty 
of  arguments  wliich  infer  connexion  from  mere  similarity  of 
style,  I  refer  Mr  Micali  to  his  own  remarks  on  the  relation 
between  the  ancient  buildings  of  Greece  and  Italy.  *'  Un- 
doubtcdlv  (he  says)  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  opinion 
that  every  building  with  polygonal  stones  is  of  vast  antiquity  ; 
still  less,  for  the  strange  hyjwthesis,  that  all  the  Italian  build- 
ings of  that  kind  were  left  by  the  Pelasgians:  chiefly,  it  is 
said,  on  account  of  the  manifest  resemblance  which  the  build- 
ings in  Italy  have  to  the  walls  of  some  cities  in  ancient  Greece, 
called  by  a  fancy  of  poets  Cydopian,  and  also  to  those  of 
Tiryus  and  Myccnte :  as  if  s*>  ru<le  a  style  of  building  had 
not  been  common  to  other  nations,  neither  of  Italy  nor  Greece, 
or  had  its  workmanship  alone  any  thing  wonderful."  (Vol.  i- 
p.  211.) 

Against  the  introduction  of  foreign  legends  in  the  early 
Italian  story,  and  the  confusion  of  the  Hellenic  and  Italian 
religions,  Mr  Micali  has  argued  with  much  force,  and  he  illus- 
trates by  many  examples  the  spirit  of  ser\'ile  imitation  which 
transferred  the  names  and  attributes  of  Grecian  to  Roman 
deities,  and  engrafted  the  Hellenic  on  the  Italian  mvthology 
(Vol.  II.  p.  175):  but  the  argument  which  he  would  derive 
from  the  non-occurrence  of  Apollo  in  the  Etruscan  and  early 
Roman  mythology,  ugainst  the  presence  of  Pelasgians  in  Italy 
cannot  avail  any  thing,  if  Muller's  theory  of  the  origin  of  the 
worship  of  Apollo  among  the  Dorians  is  tu  l>e  allowed  (ibid, 
p.  1 43.) 


694  MiaeeUaneoua  Obtervatiofu. 

The  third  volume  of  Mr  Micairs  work  is  devoted  to  an 
explanation  of  an  atlas,  which  contains  120  folio  engrarings  in 
copper-plate,  arranged  so  as  to  form  a  tolerably  complete  The- 
saurus of  Etruscan  antiquities,  under  the  heads  of  plans  of 
.cities,  remains  of  architecture  and  art,  both  in  sculpture  and 
painting.  These  illustrations  render  the  work  very  interesting 
to  all  students  of  Etruscan  lore,  and  contribute  greatly  to  in- 
crease the  value  of  the  investigations  contained  in  the  body  of 
the  history. 

G.  C  L. 


in. 

De   Taciti  loco.  Hist.  I.  62, 
AttgusH  BcEckhii  Prolitsio  Academica. 

Quod  ab  artis  dicendi  doctoribus  praecipitur,  in  oratore 
esse  oportere  inventionem,  dispositionem,  elocutionem,  memo* 
riam,  pronuntiationem ;  idem,  si  a  pronuntiatione  discesseris 
iis  solis  necessaria,  qui  viva  voce  doceant,  est  omnibus  littera- 
rum  generibus  commune,  quod,  quamcunque  tractamus 
disciplinam,  et  tnvenienda  nobis  argumenta  sunt,  et  apte 
digerenda,  et  idoneis  sententiis  verbisque  explicanda,  et  quas 
conceperis  notiones,  animo  distincte  imprimendse  firmiterque 
retinendse.  Ex  quibus  rebus  ea,  quam  primo  loco  posuimus, 
roateriam  artibus  parat ;  materise  capitibus  dispositio  ordinem, 
elocutio  formam  conciliat.  Quod  nisi  argumentum  apta 
orationis  forma  conclusum  est,  id  non  habet  perfectiooem, 
rudeque  et  inconditum  caret  lumine ;  ac  rursum  ubi  idoneam, 
quam  auctor  argumento  exponendo  adhibuerit,  formam  minus 
perspexeris,  ne  notiones  quidem  ea  comprehensas  prorsus 
intellexeris,  propterea  quod  forma  et  materia  uno  sunt  corpore 
conjunctae,  et  altera  ab  altera  definitur  vicissim.  Quamobrem 
hoc  in  artium  studiis  non  minimum  censendum,  ut  sententiis 
verbisque  eloqui  argumenta  aliorumque  elocutionem  recte 
sestimare  et  intelligere  discamus;  veteribusque  heec  est  una 
ex  primariis  liberalis  et  elegantis  eruditionis  partibus  visa, 
eximieque  hanc  olim  provinciam  ornavit  rhetorice,  nunc 
magna  ex  parte  philologis  solis  relictam,  qui  quid  quoque 
loco  commode,  quid  non  commode  dictum   sit,  in   tractandis 


Miscellaneous  Oh^ervatiorui. 


695 


scriptoribus  antiquis,  optimift  bene  dicendi  inagistriK,  ita 
inon.-itrant,  ut  ex  hac  disciplina  elociitionis  exeinjjla  petere 
RtiulioRi  qiicant.  At  quo  quis  scriptor  est  ingcniosior,  niagis- 
quc  singulari  ipsiqiic  qunsi  propria  forma  orationis,  pru^SL*rtini 
in  Bcntentiaruni  nc-xu  ct  comj>o»itione  utitur,  eo  diilicilius 
quoque  loco  du  ejus  elocutioiie  judicium  :  quin  si  vel  miiiiraum 
in  illiuH  verba  irrepscrit  nienduiu,  aut  prava  invaluerit  sen- 
tentiaruui  divisio  ct  cunjunc-liu,  elocutionis  pra>4tantia  ita 
obecuratur  vel  toUitur,  ut  balbutiut,  qui  alias  mleat  optime 
dicere.  \eque  hujiismodi  vitia  ratiorie  mere  graminatica  aut 
inveniri  aut  removeri  queunt,  pra;sertim  in  auctore  particu- 
larum  aliquanto  parciore,  sed  rhetorico  potius  senteiiliarum 
examine,  spectflto  simul  dicentis  ingenio,  quie  conjiingenda, 
qua-  separanda  sint,  exputandum  est.  Hoc  nunc  in  Taciti 
loco  quodom  moDstrabimus,  in  quo  et^  unus  et  alter  doctorum 
verum  vidit,  tamen  quod  illi  id  non  enucleate  neque  additis 
justie  interpretationis  causis  explicuerunt,  novisttiniK  editiones 
vitio»a8  usquequaque  sentential  ofFerunt,  quibus  noUs  judicit 
aubtiUssimi  auctorem  deformari.  Addereinui;  plura  exempla 
ex  eodem  Rcriptore  petita,  eaque  fortasse  etiam  insigniora, 
nisi,  quamvis  exile  et  minutum  argumenituni  videaiur,  tameo 
qui  persuaderc  legcntibus  vellet,  uon  posset  paucia  dcfuiigi 
in   sinj^ulis  Iocir. 

In  Historiis  ij^tur  postquuni  Tacitus,  qua?  Vilellius 
exereitui  in  Germania  inferiore  pra-fectiis  recte  feeerat,  com- 
meuioravit  pauciH,  addit  dcinceps  ha-c  in  recentissimis  editioni- 
bu9  ita  scripta  (i.  52.) :  Nee  consutttriit  legati  mensura,  aed 
in  majus  omnia  aceipiebnntur.  et  VitelViun  aptiri  seeerojt 
humilis.  id  comitatem  bonitatemque  favenfeti  vocahant,  f/uod 
sine  nuxiof  sine  judicio  dmiaret  nua^  largiretur  aliena:  simul 
nrxditate  imperandi  ipsa  vitin  pro  cirtuiUmH  interpretabantur 
futilU  in  ulniffue  earerriltiy  tiicut  mttdesti  quietiquc^  Ha  mali 
et  strenut.  sed  prufwia  rupidine  et  ttmgni  temeritnie  legati 
legionnm^  AUetiuH  Ceffrina  et  Fahiua  Valcna  etc.  Quod 
eluqui  argunientum  voluit,  boc  est:  qua  fama.  quo  hominuni 
judicio  imperio  destinatus  Vitellius  et  a  quibus  {KitiHsiniuni 
jnstigatus  et  adjutus  sit;  id  veru  quuniodu  sentcntiis  el  verbis 
explicuit  ?  Qua^cunque  grata  militibus  fecerat  Vitellius,  ait, 
non  ut  s  consular!  legato  facta  accipicbantur,  bed  tanquam  a 
majore  ct  qui  principatui  proximus  enset.     Cui  Kententiie  qu» 


MiaeeUaneous  ObaerveUtoHB. 


addita   sunt,    ca   si   Tacitus  apte  eloculus  firgumentum    est, 
debeut  laudcs  VitelUo  ab  ai^seclis  datas  continere,  quod  prioreni 
senteiitiain   iis,    quie  sequuntur,    ex])Hcari    et  illuRtrari    patet. 
At  quod  sequitur,  *'  Et  VUeilhts  apud  seeeraa  htimili4i^,  est 
vitu|)erantis :   itaque   id    prioribuR    non    simpliuiter    et    dirccte 
annccti  potest,  quod  fit  conjunctionc  Et ;   sed  rcprchcnsio,  lo 
qiinm    apud    scveros   incucurrcrat    VitcUius,    dvlx't    oblicjue   a 
scriptorc  intcxta  esse,  ita  ut  contrariuni    statuisse   laudatures 
intclligeretur,    vcluti    si    dixoHt :    *^  Kt    quamquam    VitoUius 
severoruni    houiinutn    urstiniatiuru;    humiiis    eral,    quippe    qui 
niiuiis  ill   vulgus  bbtuditiis  et   iodecora  familiaritate  uteretur 
tamen  faventes  earn  non  humilitatem  vocabant,  sed  coniitateai 
bonitatemque*'*'.     Accedil  quod  pronamon   id  ab  Hug.  Grotio 
et  lo.  Fr,  Gronovio  invectura  longe  est  pessimum.     Gronovius 
quidem    hoc  ad    humilitatenn    rettulit,    verba    ita    expHcands 
rat  us :    ^*  Id    (quod    humiiis    VitelUus)    comitatcm    faventes 
Tocabont ;    quod   vero   sine   modo   et   judicio   sua    et    aliena 
largiretur,  vocabant  bonitatcm".     At  hoc  si  voluisset  Tacitus, 
voces  comitatetn  ftonitntemqtte  non   tam  arete  conjunxisset  et 
in  ununi  quasi  corpus  couglutinasset,  scd  distinctis  scripsisset 
vocabulis:    "  Id  coraitatem  faventes  vocabant,  et  bonitateui, 
quod  sine  modo  etc."     Hotius  igitur  eomitatem  bonitateinqu9^^ 
conjunctim  Tacitus  dc  eo  dixit,   quod   ViteUius  crga  onines»f 
tiullo  judicio,    Diuniticus  et   libcralis   esset:    in   qua  re   cum 
bonitate   siuiul   cuniitatem   agno>;cerc    faventes  poterant,   quod 
qui    niuiium    c^mis    ui^t,    sine   judicin    et    facitius    obsequitur 
cuivia    gratiam    poululanti.      Quapruptcr    repudiamus    Grotii 
Gronoviique   rationem :    in    qua  quuni   aliquid  duri    relinqui 
sensisset  etiam  ErncRtius,  tauieo  quod  sibi  persuaserat^  irt  taH 
Bcriptoret  ut  ait,  hoc  esse  ferendum  neque  perspexerat,  nullum 
unquam  auctortm  diligentiuR  et  exactius  quam  Taciturn  locii- 
tum  es&e,   operain   non  dedit,   ut  verum  quiereret.      In    libris 
quidem  non  istud  id,  sed  pro  eo  ita  halietur:  Tacitus  vero 
quum  pro  vulgaribus  Quamquam  et   tamen    stileat   Vt  atque 
^  ita  dictTe,  ipsum  illud  Un  eo  ducit,  ut  in  prsgres^a  excidisse 
voculam   ut   statuamus:    qua    reposita  lucraniur  earn,   quam 
supra    poittulavimus,    sententiarum    juncturani.     Atque    illud 
UT  qumn  inter  ET  ac  VITeU'nia  fncillinie  excidere  potuerit, 
non  dubitamuR  id  ibi  inscrerc:   niiramur  vero  quod  nee  Oro- 
novius  neque  Emesiins  obsecuti  sunt  Beatn  Hhennno,  Acidulio, 


MiscelianemM  OhservaHotu. 


697 


Frcinshpmio,  item  c»,  qui  codit*m  Agricolip  correxit,  nno 
consensu  illud  ut  vel  |M>st  nomen  Vitellii  vel  ante  id  ndclendum 
ccnflentibus.  Jam  eosdem  illos,  c\ui  favenfes  comttatem  boni- 
tatcmquc  in  ViteUio  vocalmnt  id,  quod  medium  inter  vitiuin 
et  Imnum,  aut  vitio  etiam  prupius,  con»entaneum  est  Jtimul 
ipsa  vitia  pro  virtufihus  interpretatog  esse:  c[uaTe  favenfes 
esse  subjectum  verbi  interpretabantur  probabile  cat:  qui 
Vitellii  vitia  pro  virtutibus  venditassc  dicuntur  avidiiate  im- 
peratKii^  hoc  est,  non  qu(Kl  ab  illo  ipsis  cttpiebant  im[>crari 
(qufp  mira  fuerit  sententia),  sed  quod  ipsi  vellent  imperii 
Vitelliani  participea  esse,  ut  alibi  (Hist.  iv.  S5.) :  Ptereeffue 
civitates  adversus  no9  armatw  spe  Hbertatis,  et  si  etpuiesent 
sercitium,  cupidine  imperitandi.  Verum  quod  probabile 
diximus,  faventes  esse  subjcctum  verbi  interpretabantur^  id 
cerium  Jiet  considerantibus,  quam  absonum  sit  altcrum  sub- 
jectum,  quod  solum  pro  illo  adscisci  queat,  i»tud  diciinus 
miriH  verborum  ainbogibuH  prolatum,  quod  in  noviciis  edi- 
tioiiibus  cum  voce  interpretabantur  conjungitur,  *'  muUi  in 
rtirntjite  exetcitu  sicut  modesti  rfuietique^  iia  viali  et  strefiuP. 
Nam  qui  Vitellii  vitia  pro  virtutibus  interpretabantur,  nonne 
iidem  ejus  humilitatem  comitatis  et  bonitutis  nomine  celebra^ 
verint  ?  nonne  iidem  in  faventibus  numerandi  fuerint  ?  Cur 
igilur  diviso  subjecto  comitatis  bonitatisquc  laudos  ViteUio 
arfaventibue  tribute  dicantur,  vitia  ejus  autem  pro  virtutibus 
interprctati  esse  non  illi  faventes,  sed  nescio  qui  **  multi  in 
utroquc  excrcitu  et  modesti  ct  mali?"  Num  vero  potuit 
verisimile  haberi,  modeatoa  et  quietoa  codem  quo  mains  et 
strenuos  animo  amplexos  esse  Vitellium,  eadeiu  ista,  quam 
Tacitus  nominat,  aviditate  imperandi  qualicunqutf  (neque 
enim  in  hac  re  judic^nda  interest,  quomodo  hanc  dictionem 
explices)  esse  ductos  et  Vitellio  obstrictos  ?  Denique  num, 
si  illi  midJti  subjectum  vocis  interpretabantur  sunt,  uUa  est 
via  istius  comparationis,  sicut  modesti  qiiieti(jue,  ita  mali 
et  etrenui  ?  Immo  perversa,  abiturda,  sana  ratione  prorsus 
destituta  est  haec  sententiurum  com]K)Ritio,  quant  ne  tironi 
quidem  condones :  "  Sicut  tuode^ti  f/uietiqtie  Vitellii  vitia 
pro  virtutil)us  interpretabantur,  Ua  etiam  mali  et  ttti'enui": 
ad  quam  interpretntioneni  quuni  nialos  et  strenuos,  novarum 
rerum  studiosos,  procliviores  bonis  et  quietis  fuisoe  par  sit, 
saltern  inversa  ratione  dicendum  erat :  **  sicut  mali  et  strenui. 


698  Miscellaneous  ObserwUums. 

ita  modesti  quietique^.     Fostremo  quod  Tacitiu    de  legatis 
legionum  judicium  addiditj  Sed  profuea  cupidine  et  insigni 
temeritate    legati    legionvm^    Mienus    CtBcina    et    Fabius 
Valens,    non    ullo    in  teriore    nexu    cum    prioribus    sen  ten  tiis 
conjunctum  est,    si   iUa    ^'  multi   in    utroque   exercitu    sicut 
modesti  quietique,   ita  mali  et  strenui""  nihil  sunt  nisi   sub- 
jectum    verbi    interpretabantur :     turn    demum    hoc,     quod 
diximus,  de  Cflecina    et    Valente  judicium   recte  oompositum 
cum  prioribus  erit,  si   Taciti  de  aliis  jjreecesserit  judicium, 
quibus  deinde  opponantur  legati  legionum.     £t  profecto  nihil 
in    Tacito    magis    spectandum    quam    interior    sententiarum 
nexus,    quem    ille    tanto    servat    diligentius,    quanto    sibi    in 
particulis,  quibus  quseque  jungantur,  omittendis  plus  sumpsit 
libertatis.     Ne  multa :   postquam  Tacitus  faventium  de  Vitel- 
lio  judicia  paucis  proposuit,  quinam  huic  in  utroque  exercitu 
potissimum  dediti  fuerint,  quinam  insigniter  faverint,  eumque 
ad  audendum  facinus  impulerint,  novam  orsus  rerum   seriem 
explicat.     Erant  hi  Valens  et   Csecina;   quorum 'audaciam  et 
cupiditatem  singularem  ut  extoUeret  gradatione,  tribus  verbis 
primum  monuit,  in  duobus  illis  exercitibus,  apud  quos  bona 
Vitellii   fama   erat,   fuisse   sane   multos  modestos   quietosque, 
qui  nihil  molirentur  novi,  verum  fuisse  etiam  multos  males 
simul  et  strenuos,  qui  ad  Vitellium  adjuvandum  eique  impe- 
rium  trademdum  essent  prompt! :   quae  sententia  sine  particula 
conjunctiva  infertur,   quod,   ut   diximus,    nova  incipit    argu- 
mentationis  series:   sed  in  malis  illis  strenuisque  poOssimos 
fuisse  duos  legates  legionum  deinceps  addit,  utrumque  eximia 
et  cupidine,  quse  malorum  est,  et  temeritate,  quae  strenuorum. 
Vides  verba  "  profusa  cupidine  et  insigni  temeritate''*  nexu 
intimo  referri  ad  ilia  prEecedentia  '•^mali  et  strenuV*;  atque 
etiam  verba  "  in  utroque  exerdtu"^,  ideo  apposuit  quod  in- 
sequens    sententia    priori    arctissime    conjuncta    est:     quippe 
Csecina    superioris,    Valens    inferioris    exercitus   legatus    fuit. 
Quae  quum  ita  sint,  apta  Tacito  elocutio  redditur  revocanda 
pristina  distinctione,  quam  pessimi  critici  mutarunt ;  universus 
vero  locus  ita  scribendus  est :  Nee  consularis  legati  mensura, 
sed  in  majus  omnia   accipiebantur.     Et  ut    Vitellius  apud 
severos  humilis^  ita  comitatem  bonitatemque  faventes  vocabant^ 
quod  sine  modo,  sine  judicio  donaret  sua,  largiretur  aliena ; 
simul  aviditate  imperandi  ipsa  vitia  pro  virtutibus  interpre' 


Miscellaneous  OhaercaHotte, 


699 


iahantur.  Multi  in  utroqtie  exercilu  aicut  modesH  quietique, 
ita  mrili  et  strenur ;  sed  jtrufuna  cupidine  et  inttiffjU  tcmeritate 
legaii  legiottum  Aiieuuv  Ccecmn  et  Fabius  Valens. 

Hsc  paucula  more  a  inajuribus  traiUto,  qui  aliquid  ex 
liberalia  eruditiunia  orbe  petitum  intlicihua  M'liolarum  pra?- 
mitti  voluerunt,  de  co  conuueniati  scriptore,  quo  nullu.s  non 
□ludu  adoltfscentiuin,  sed  virorum  atque  ipsorum  reipublicie 
rectoruiii  et  itif^eniis  et  moribus  foniiandis  merlto  habetur 
utiliur,  tribus  verbis  cohortamur  Vos,  Commili tones  "t  ex  im- 
mensa  discendi  materia,  quae  Vobis  hoc  prsclcclionuin  recensu 
proponitur,  ca  dcligatis,  qua?  Vcstrum  cujuMpie  studiorum 
rationi  niaxinie  convcnirc  aut  ipai  jam  pcritiores  intclleseritis, 
aut  prudentes  judicaverint  consiliorii,  non  qui  victus  qu^rendi 
causa  tractandas  litteras  arbitreiitur,  ct  nihil  censoant  con- 
duccrc,  nisi  quw  vulguribus  quutidianx*  vita:  usibus  inserviant, 
sed  qui  summani  ductrinarum  utilitatem  in  eo  pnsitam  sciant, 
ut  Utteris  erigantur  et  cxcolanlur  animi.  Quudsi  vera  solida- 
que  scientiu  nientes  Vestra*  inibutce  artibusque  probe  Hubactic 
hierint,  verendum  non  est,  ne  reipublicse  et  civibus  Don  sitis 
aliquando  utiles  futuri. 

S(T.  Berolini  d.  xv.  in.  Junii  a.  mdcccxxx. 


.    .  IV. 

De  Platonis  in  Repuhlica  loco^ 
Augitati  Boeckhii  Prolusio  Jcademica. 

Platonis  de  Republica  opus,  quod  non  solum  veterum 
eruditisftimis  admirabile,  novis  Platonicis  divinum,  M.  Tullio 
Ciceroni  ita  insignc  viituni  est,  ut  ct  multa  indc  in  sua  scripta 
transfcrret,  et  illud  compositis  de  Rcpubtica  libns  Gemularelur, 
et  Huctorcm  ejus  in  littcris  ad  Atlicuin  datis*  diccret  **  Deura 
ilium  nostrum  Platonem,*"  sed  etiain  longius  remotitt  orientalj- 
bus  phil(>si)j}his  ita  placuit,  ut  id  in  Arabicum  atque  in  ipsam 
Hebrniram  linguani  verteretur^  et  ab  ingeniosissimo  inter  nos- 
trates  philosopho"  in  suo  genere  unicum  vocatur  mcrito,  uno 
conatu  duplex  absolvit  argumentum,  justitia*  Dotionem  et  vim, 
atque  oplimain  civitatis  formaui.     Quae  res  quum  viderentur 


•  IT.  16. 

Vol..  ir  No.  il 


*  ScheUing.  .Methodol.  Ktud.  wid.  f.  -iSi. 
4  IT 


,|M 


MuceHaneoHn  Obgerrationn. 


sfltis  d!Ters,*p  esse,  mature  qufpsitum  eat,  Platonici  hujus  openV 

fini!i  utrum  in  justi  natura  ex|K)ntMnla  an  in  reipublicH?  explk 

tione  constitutLis  sit:  utriusque  sententiic  sumtnfLs  rationea  ben^ 

perseciitus  est  Proclus  in  iis,   quie  de  Platonis  Hepiiblica  coiu- 

mentatus   est^.      Sod    iinivcrsi  opcris    compositione    exanunata 

Morgenstcrnius  in  elegante  de  Platonis   Ucpublica    libro  jus- 

titifc  potissinium  tractandie  Platuncni  opcram  dare  docet;   nee 

tomen  vidcdir  ea  ren^jvissc,  qiiir  in  t-onlrariam   partem  a  vc- 

teribiis    disputata   sunt:   immn   Platonici    in    UepubUca  et   id 

Timaeo  Socratis  ipsius  auctuiitateni  ita  pro  utraquc  scntentia 

^puwnare  intellexit  Schlcicnnacbcrus  noster',  sa^acissiraus  Pla- 

'tonis   interpres,    ut    eogeretur   bicipitcm   Janum    hunc    vocare 

Socratem,  qui  quidem  in  Kepublica  Justitiam  ftermonis  6i>eni 

rfttatuens   reli*o  spectet,    sod    prorsum    in    Timaeo,   de   civitate 

^actum  perhibens.     Niniiriim  Socratis  et  Platonis  excusationii^ 

qufle  nihilo  sediiR  ncecRsaria  est,  una  relinqtiitur  via,   qua 

[ncut   Tetores  bariini    reruin    prtidentisAJmoA  jihIIccs   etiam    in 

ftbis  scriptoribus  dcprchendiinus,  uniis  ex  illia  pridem  demon- 

irtravit.     Ktenim  Proclus,  nisi  magnnpere  fallimur,  rectisdnK!^ 

statuit,  vcram  utramque  rationem  esse,  non  itii,  nt  qiiod  Mor- 

genstemius  statuit,   plures  operia  fines    sint :    hoc    enim    fieri 

non  poRse,  quia  oratio,  quo;  quidem  lioniE  frtigis  sit,  nnimali 

Kimilis  in  partiuin  omnium  conocntum  pcrfectissimum  formato, 

uno  del)cat  fine  contineri:   sctl  ita,   ut  duplex  ille  finis  sit  unus 

idemque;  in  quam  sententiam  etsi  Proclus  non  male  disputavit, 

nee  nobis  videtur  reprehend  end  us  fui.sso,  quasi  panira  recto  et 

accurate  tlisseruerit'',  tamen  nunc,  quod  paucis  rem  expedire 

constituimus,  priestat  ad  Platonis  ipsius  judicium  et  doctrinam 

[J)rovocare,  qui  longc  distans  ab  illis,  qui  a  republica  gerenda 

Seeernuut  juslitiau),  in  Charmide'^  diaertc  definial  yw/tf'ic<*M  esse 

acientiam  jusH.     Et  tantum  abest,  ut  Flato  ab  initio  operis 

jduas  illas  res  disjunxerit,  ut  inde  a  secunda  prinii  libri  parte 

rjusti  et  reipublicas  notiones  consociarit :  quippe  ipsa,  quae   in 

]{)rimo  libro  potissimum  refutatur,  Thrasymachi  Sophistoe  ratio 

*  P.  349  fiqq.  in  Plat  cd.  Basil,  pr.  time.  Muretun  in  jutMrmlo,  qund  C/nnniemarili 
in  Reip.  i.  ii.  praminlt,  Ijsiine  expremit,  smI  undr  prtita  F4«ent,  non  divil.  Dmnino 
qu«  de  PlAtonc  AIukiiu  •fripaic,  twn  Rii|>omtKat  ejus  fiun«,  (juani  nimiuiD  celcbnot 
Uutlaujtc*.  . 

•  In  PlftL  tnailat.  P.  in,  T.  i.  p,  W. 
■  Morgmikt.  p.  Hfl.  "  P,  lyO,  ff. 


MiaeeUnneous 


vnftent. 


non  philoeopha  sed  empirica,  ex  qua  non  aine  magna  veri 
specie,  et  lis,  quae  in  civitatibus  vulgo  instituuntur,  conve^ 
nifuler  justum  id  viK*atur,  quntl  potenliori  utile  sit,  non  alieua 
e»t  ab  Uta  justi  et  reipulilicie  conjunctione,  et  Sucrates  jam  in 
eodeni  libru*  justitiam  et  injustitiain  et  in  sinj^ulis  huminihus  et 
in  civili  plurium  cuininunione  canileni  liuberc  vim  signiHcat. 
Qua*  vero  initio  primi  Hhii  de  Roto  jiistu,  oniissa  dc  rcpublica 
di.sputationc,  Platu  proponit,  iis  non  sine  jwo  removcnliir  Ic- 
viorcs  qiiwtlam  et  vvd^arcs  dc  justo  opinioncs,  instituta  quasi 
velitatione  ct  jucunda  ex  ere  i  tat  ion  c,  qua  ad  majoi-a  parctur 
aditu8.  Kk  qua  parte  non  nimitim  scvera,  quemadmodum  jam 
olim  aliquid  ex  Rcpublica  i>etituiu  prooemii  loco  enarravimus, 
'nune  decerpcmus  particulam,  exiguam  explicaturi  voceni,  de 
qua  minus  rectc  videtur  judicatum  esse. 

Nam  postquam  Socrates  demoustravit,  non  niag^nopere 
utilem  ease  justitiam,  81  ilia,  ut  visum  Polemareho  erat,  ad 
custutlicndLun  tantum  apta  sit,  facete  jam  doeet,  quee  ars 
ad  custodiendas  res  sit  comparata,  eandem  ctiaui  furando  ex- 
cellere"":  Ap  ovj(^  o  itara^ai  oetfOTOToi  ev  M<>X7*  ^^'***^  inquit, 
fire  WKTtKtj  eire  tu'i  koI  nXXri,  oi/to?  tni  <pv\fi^a<jdai ;  Itarv 
y9.  Ap  ovv  aal  voirov  osTis  ottvos  (pu\a^afT9ai  Kui  XadeiK, 
ouTO^  SftvoTttTOi  Koi  €ixiroi^aatl  iifxotye  dovei.  AAXa  ft^¥ 
aTptiT&ireoov  ye  o  ai/rov  (bu\aq  ayaOiK,  otrtrep  tat  ra  Ttov 
iroXefiiiov  K^tKpfu  Kftt  fiovXcvfiuTtt  Knl  tuv  u\Xa9  irpf*^*»v. 
Tiavu  ye.  ""Otou  tic  apa  ceivoK  fjiuXa^f  tovtov  jcai  fpwp 
oetvo9.  Eoucev.  lit  apa  o  c'lKatn^  apyvptov  ottvoi  ipvXaTTetVy 
Kut  KXeTTTtitf  oetvoi.  flr  youv  o  Xoyo^^  etjitj,  ajj/xaivet.  KXesr- 
Tijtt  apa  Tif  o  cUoKKt  tov  eotkfv,  dvniretJKit'TUit  et  reliqua. 
Quihub  verbis  nihil  potest  verius  dici:  sicut  enim  lioniu  simplex 
et  oliorum  consiliis  cliciendis  impar  ne  »ibi  (|uidcm  cavere 
potest,  eed  facile  cireumvenitur  ab  astutis  et  oppriniitur,  ita 
qui  sibi  prospieere  ct  cavere  sivc  natura  give  arte  didieerit, 
eadcm  calbditate  ad  alios  fallendos  et  decipiendos  optime  in- 
8tructus  est:  per  quas  artes  magna  reipublicip  pars  geritur 
Sed  in  illo  loco  Xa0€tv  difficile  visum  intcrpretihus :  quare 
Muretus  ense  nodum  solvens  delenda  verba  xai  Xa^cjv  censuit; 
8al\'iniuB^  conjccit  aXBelvj  quod  fuit  qui  non  improbaret,  quum 


'   p.  »l.  A  .lis-  *  P.Xa.  E  aqq. 

•  Mbr.  Ob«».  T.  V.,  P.  ii.  p.  871». 


702  Miaceilaneous  ObaenaHona. 

tamen  vox  favec  Hippocratica,  quam  Galeno  facile  concedemasr 
non  obtrudi  Flatoai  queat,  atque  insuper  aoristus,  noa  pnesens 
desideretur.  Sed  Asdus  ia  secunda  Reipublicse  editione  ad 
infinitiTuin  \a0eiv  priroum  supplet  vmrwv  ex  proecedenti  vdaor, 
quod  neutiquaui  fieri  potest,  deinde  illi  istud  \a0€iv  voa^v  est 
clandeatinum  morbum  habere  et  cttstodire:  at,  quidquid  ad 
hoc  illustrandum  attulit,  non  evicit  banc  aententiam  huie  loco 
aptam  esse,  et  praeterea  \a0e7v  voawv  nihil  est  nisi  clanculum 
cegrotare :  quo  nihil  minus  Platonicae  orationi  convenit.  Quare 
nuper  jam  relicta  hac  interpretation e  pro  k<u  \a0etv  conjecit 
fii^  Xa/iij.  Preeterimus,  quod  Steinbruedielius  verbo  Xadcti* 
substituere  volebat  icXen-reii',  nullo  id  modo  sententis  acoom- 
modatum.  Nos  quam  longo  ex  tempore  verbi  hujus  inter- 
pretationem  in  scholis  dedimus,  earn  non  repeteremns,  post- 
quam  non  eandem  quidem  sed  non  multum  dissimilem  ante  hos 
decern  annos  prodidit  lo.  Udalr.  Faesius^",  nisi  neminem  huic 
aurem  prsebuisse  videremus.  Nam  quum  Plato  cum  notione 
sUti  cavendi  mox  composita  altera  per  astuHae  faUendi,  t^ 
ipvKaTTCiv  opponat  to  KkiirreiVy  ita  ut  qui  aptus  sit  cavendo, 
idem  dicatur  conaiUis  aUemni  clanculum  encuendo  (t^  irXeir- 
Tfliv)  et  opprimendo  praestare;  consentaneum  est,  jam  in  illis 
verbis,  koI  votrov  o^rts-  ^iiw  ^uXo^ao'dai  Koi.  XaOeiv,  clan- 
deatini  notionem  menti  scriptoris  esse  obversatam.  Atqui  ut 
jcXciTTciif  ^vkeufAaTa  xal  rar  oXXa;  trpa^eis  paulo  post  est 
clafhculum  et  fallendo  capere  alterum  consiliia  ejus  surreptU 
et  occupatiSf  quod  est  agentis;  ita  sibi  caventis,  ad  quern 
refertur  illud  votrov  XaOtiiv,  hoc  est,  ne  capiatuTf  sed  ut  evadat 
et  faUat  periculum.  Et  hoc  ipsum  est  voaov  <pv\d(a(r0€u  Kal 
Xa9elVf  cavere  sUn  a  morbo  morbumgue  fallere,  deoitare^  latere, 
ne  te  capiat :  quae  formula  non  vulgo  quidem  usitata  f uit,  sed 
ex  le  praesenti  a  Platone  composita  est.  In  qua  explicatione 
simplicissima  consistendum  erit,  si  nihil  tribuendum  evicerimus 
lectioni  recepts  /<>7  "iraBeiv,  quam  ex  codice  chartaceo  Mona- 
censi  (g)  protulit  BeUkerus  noster,  de  Platone  eximie  meritus, 
et  ex  Florentine  (6,  fortasse  potius  /3)  enotavit  Franc,  de  Furia. 
Quae  scriptura  paulo  pinguior  et  nimium  expedita  in  ceterorum 
codicum  sat  multorum  dissensu  eo  est  suspectior,  quod  a  8e» 
cunda  manu  in  Florentinum  illata  est;  examinatisque  codicis 

'"  PhiM.  Beitr.  a.  rf.  Schweix  T.  i.  p.  282. 


MUcellaneorts 


iotu^ 


703 


lonacensis  lectionibua  compluribuft  prorsus  nobis  pcrsuasiraus, 
pluriniis  locis,  iibi  ilte  vcl  5olus  vcl  cum  aliquo  consimiti  in- 
bigniurcm  variclatem  oficrt,  dcKto  earn  nlicui  Gricco  dcbcri, 
qui  Denietrii  TricUnii  et  Manuelis  Moschopuli  more  recen- 
Biierit  Platunica:  talcs  enim  rocensioncs  ctiam  Platonis  opera 
experta  esse,  ex  multis  colligitur  ituliciis,  dubetque  illis  recen- 
sionibus  investigandii)  diligeiis  impendi  opera,  quum  prtesertim 
codices  ea  via  interpolati  el  Icvigati  aliqaa  in  ceteris  rebus 
fioloant  puritate  splendere.  Ita  ut  ex  primo  Reipiiblicfe  libro 
pauca  aff'eramus,  in  verbis"  to  Tiro?  vapaKaTaBefxtyov  t( 
OTMoZv  juj)  (Tfoippovws  airatTouvTi  aTTooioovtUy  lectio  codicis 
Afonaccnsis  aTraiTnurro?  arguit  correctorem,  qui  cavens,  ne 
dativus  conjungeretur  cum  ort^uv^  dedcrit  genitivum  prs- 
cedent!  tivo^  TrufJOKaTuBeficvov  ailaptatum ;  verbis  1;  aur^ 
aiT^  TO  ^u/jLiptpof  £^^^t^//t•T■at'''  in)j)crite  additum  est  kuI  tou 
apxouevoKf  quod  etiam  librum  t'lor.  /3.  invasit;  in  verbis 
Tavra  /tev  ovv  oti  outok  e^ei  tAuvffdfti}^^,  primap  personam 
rationcm  nnn  perspiciens  corrector,  ex  cujus  rcccnsionc  Mo- 
nacensis  codex  fluxit,  non  inelcganter,  scd  tamcn  minus  ad 
personam  dicentis  accommodate  dedit  /taiSdveiv  In*  quod  et 
ipsum  Flor.  /3.  ofFert,  itidcm  ul  nostro  loco,  a  secundu  manu 
fulsum  prodente:  ne  plura  nunc  conferomus,  qua?  facili  col- 
leger! s  opera. 

Scr.  Berolini  d.  xviii.  m.  Jun,  a  uccccxxix. 


V. 
Cleon  and  Admiral  Vernon. 

Mu  MiTFORD,  in  his  elaborate  narrative  of  the  Pelopon- 
ne&ian  war,  has  drawn  a  comparison  between  the  military 
operations  of  Brasidas  in  the  Athenian  dependencies  lying 
towards  Thrace,  and  those  of  General  Wolfe,  the  hero  of 
Quebec,  in  Canada'.  The  points  of  resemblance  are  very  re- 
mnrkahle,  but,  as  he  observes,  the  differences  arc  also  obvitms. 
The  parallel  is,  however,  sufficiently  close  to  awaken  that 
interest  which  all  men  naturally  feel  in  marking  the  identity 
of  the  human  character,  under  similar  circumstances,  in  ages 


P.  331.*. 


'»  V.Mt.A. 


P.  W2.  />. 


'  Chap.  *»l.  ^ert.  «. 


704  Miacellaneou8  Obaervaiiotu. 

«nd  countries  far  removed  fW>m  each  other.  Such  indications 
of  a  oommon  nature  connect  one  generation  with  another,  and 
bring  home  to  the  mind  a  more  lively  conception  of  the  past. 
The  parallel  aliout  to  lie  drawn  fetches  one  of  its  subjects  from 
the  same  period  of  Grecian  history,  so  fertile  in  remarkable 
men  and  striking  incidents.  If  in  Mr  Mitford^s  case  the 
points  of  difference  ]ie  thought  to  outweigh  those  of  resem- 
blance, it  may  perhaps  be  said  that  in  the  following  comparison 
the  preponderance  is  exactly  reversed. 

To  the  reader  of  Thucydides  it  will  lie  needless  to  relate 
in  detail  the  singular  chance  of  war,  which,  in  the   seventh 
year   of  the   Peloponnesian   struggle,   threw  almost   into   the 
hands  of  the  Athenians  a  considerable  body  of  Lacedaemonian 
hoplites,  with  their  attendant  Helots,  on  the  barren  and  deso- 
late island,   Sphacteria^.      As  our  parallel  refers  not  to  the 
mode  of   their  unlucky   insulation  from  the   main   army   in 
Messenia,  but  to  the  chief  actor  in  their  final  capture  alone, 
we  need  give  but  just  so  much  narrative  as  is  requited  to 
illustrate  this  part  of  the  disaster.     These  brave  men,  then, — 
cut  off  from  all  intercourse  writh  the  main  land,  and  strictly 
blockaded  by   the  Athenian  cruisers,  which  commanded  the 
sea ;  without  even  provisions,  except  such  as  could  be  smug- 
gled   into    the   island   at    a  desperate    risk    by   adventurers 
tempted  with  a  large  bounty, — had  already  held  out  nearly 
seventy  days,  and  still  cheated  the  Athenians  of  their  prey. 
There  was   no   sign  of   speedy   surrender.       Meanwhile  the' 
blowing  season  was  coming  on  apace ;    the  constant  look  out 
was    wearisome    and   dangerous   to   the   Athenian    navy,    and 
might  soon   become  impossible.     The  citizens  at  home  com- 
plained of  the  inaction  of  the  blockading  squadron,  and  dis- 
content was  loud  in  the  streets  of  Athens  and  in  the  ecclesia. 
In  this  temper  of  the  people,  Cleon,  the  popular  leader  of  the 
day,  a  sharp  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  procrastinating  Nicias, 
and  a  ready  and   shrewd  debater — (whom    Aristophanes  has 
made  the  scapegoat  of  all  the  evils  of  democracy,  as  Socrates 
is  made  to  bear  all  the  sins  of  all  the  sophists) — Cleon,  being 
now  under  a  passing  cloud  in  consequence  of  the  slow  pro- 
gress of  the  affair  from  which  he  had  promised  so  much,  comes 

•'  Time.  IV.  U.  =  Ibid.  27- 


Muotlhneou*  ObseroaHimt. 


705 


boldly  Forward  to  the  assembled  people,  and  diiring  a  debate 
u|>on  the  question^  flatly  dcaounces  the  ofiiLers  employed  in 
the  service  iis  cowards';  "if  Met/  ircre  mtfi,  they  ought  to 
capture  the  Spartans ;  that  if  he  wei*e  put  in  command,  he 
would  with  even  au  iiicontiidc'ruhle  force  bring  thetn  to  Athens 
•live  or  dead,  and  that  too  within  twenty  days."  Nicias  the 
generalissimo,  stung  by  his  reproaches,  takes  him  at  his  word ; 
— "he  might  have  the  necessary  force  and  go;** — auguriog, 
no  doubt,  with  others  of  his  |>arty\  that  one  of  two  things 
moat  hajifx^n :  that  they  should  cither  lie  quit  of  the  truuble- 
fionie  op{H)sition  of  Clean,  uptm  hi:^  failure;  or  that  the  Lacev 
da-monians  would  fall  into  their  liands,  sliould  he  succeed. 
The  pco]>lc  applaud  his  Ifold  proi>osa1,  and  imttst  on  his 
going  to  redeem  his  word,  whether  he  would  or  not.  He  goes, 
and  is  completely  successful,  bringing  the  captives  to  Athens 
within  the  specified  twenty  days.  The  applausi'  of  the  citi- 
zens exceeded  all  moderation,  with  which  ])arty  npiriC  had 
pcrhops  something  to  do.  Cleon  was  esteemed  a  first-rate 
general,  and  accordingly  sent  out  to  match  the  incomparable 
Brasidu5. 

The  temper  of  the  English  public,  at  the  period  to  which 
we  are  aliout  to  refer,  is  well  evinced  by  the  uncommon 
p<ipularity  of  Glover's  ballad,  entitled  Admiral  Hosier^ 
Ghost,  which  was  a  political  squib.  Hosier  had  bc*en  sent 
out  lo  protect  the  West  Indian  trade  against  the  Spaniards, 
who  were  a  terror  to  our  mprchantmen  in  thtMw  seas.  Their 
principal  station  was  Piirto-lwllo ;  off  whiuh  accordingly 
Hosier  cruised.  But  he  had  instructions  not  to  mako  aggres- 
sions on  the  enemy ;  and  he  remained  inactive  at  sea,  insulted 
and  despised  by  the  Spaniards,  till  his  crews  Ix^aroc  diseased, 
and  he  at  lost  died  of  a  broken  heart.  He  was  a  brax'o 
sailor,  but  his  orders  kept  him  inactive.  This  state  of  things, 
so  disgraceful  to  our  nuval  power,  continued  till  17^9;  when 
Admiral  Vernon,  —  who  was  a  fierce  and  not  inelc»quenl 
assailant  in  debate,  and  the  delight  of  liis  party  in  the  House 
of  Commons  from  his  blunt  impudence  and  harassing  hostility 
t<J  ministers, — came  prominently  before  the  pubbe.  He  was 
esteemed  a  pretty  good  officer ;  but  his  boisterous  manner  in 


•  Thiic  IV.  87,  SH. 


'   tbid.  88. 


706  MiaceUaneoua  Observatioru. 

the  house  was  his  principal  recommendation.  In  a  debate  on 
the  Spanish  depredations,  which  still  continued  unrepressed, 
he  chanced  to  affirm  that  Porto-bello  might  be  easily  taken, 
if  the  officers  did  their  duty ;  and  led  on  by  the  ardour  of 
debate  he  even  pledged  himself  to  capture  the  place,  with  only 
six  ships  of  war,  if  they  would  put  him  in  command.  The 
opposition  re-echoed  his  proposal.  Vernon  was  called  by 
anticipation  a  Drake  and  a  Ralegh ;  and  his  popularity 
knew  no  bounds.  The  minister,  Sir  R.  Walpole,  glad  to 
appease  the  popular  clamour,  and  to  get  rid  for  a  time  of 
Vernon's  busy  opposition  in  the  Commons;  and  hoping  per- 
haps,'like  Nicias,  that  by  the  failure  of  his  boast  he  would 
disgrace  himself  and  his  party,  or  else  clear  the  seas  of  the 
Spaniards, — closed  with  his  offer  so  lightly  made ;  and  ac- 
tually sent  him  out  with  a  fleet  to  the  West  Indies.  Vernon 
sailed,  and  was  as  good  as  his  word.  He  speedily  took 
Porto-bello,  and  demolished  all  the  fortifications.  Both 
bouses  joined  in  an  address ;  Vernon  rose  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  popularity ;  and  '*  the  nation  in  general  (observes 
the  historian)  was  wonderfully  elated  by  an  exploit,  which 
was  magnified  much  above  its  merit."  A  Sacheverel  or  a 
Vernon  are  quite  sufficient  pillars  for  party  to  rear  a  tri- 
umphal arch  upon. 

The  extraordinary  performance  of  an  extravagant  boast, 
under  circumstances  unexpectedly  favourable,  is  not  more 
observable  in  both  cases,  than  the  speedy  exposure  of  the 
inability  of  both  commanders,  when  subsequently  put  to 
the  test.  The  hero  of  Sphacteria  at  the  head  of  a  brave 
army  in  Thrace,  with  which  he  did  not  know  what  to  do* 
next,  like  a  chess-player  who  does  not  see  his  next  move, 
is  absolutely  ludicroiu.  The  conduct  of  the  conqueror  of 
Porto-bello,  when  entrusted  with  a  powerful  fleet  on  a 
larger  field  of  action,  is  equally  decisive  of  his  real  merits. 
He  failed  most  miserably  as  admiral  on  the  West  India 
station  ;  thus  showing  that  a  coup-de-mairii  whether  in  poli- 
tics or  war,  though  it  often  succeed  most  signally,  is  no  safe 
evidence  of  general  ability. 

W.  S. 

«  Thuc.  V.  7- 


^^^H                         UNIVERSITY   OF  MICHIGAN               ^^H 
^^^^^1                                           DATE  DUE                                          ^^^1 

^H          ^^<^^Q)